{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45310/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45310","id":"gutenberg_45310","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45310","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sabbath"],"text":"Transcriber's Note:\n\nQuotations from Scripture and other sources, which are in smaller type\nin the original, have been indented one space.\n\nSmall capitals have been replaced by full capitals. Italics are\nindicated by _underscores_.\n\nThe use of hyphens has been rationalized. Apparent typographical errors\nhave been corrected.\n\n\n\n\nTRACTS ON THE SABBATH.\n\n\"THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD THY GOD.\"\n\n NEW YORK:\n PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY.\n No. 9 Spruce Street.\n 1853.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n  1.--Reasons for introducing the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment to\n      the consideration of the Christian Public. 24 pp.\n\n  2.--The Sabbath: its Moral Nature and Scriptural Observance. 48 pp.\n\n  3.--The Sabbath: Authority for the Change of the Day. 24 pp.\n\n  4.--The Sabbath and Lord's Day: A History of their Observance in the\n      Christian Church. 48 pp.\n\n  5.--A Christian Caveat. 4 pp.\n\n  6.--Twenty Reasons for keeping holy, in each week, the Seventh Day\n      instead of the First Day. 4 pp.\n\n  7.--Thirty-six Plain Questions, presenting the main points in the\n      Sabbath Controversy: A Dialogue between a Minister of the Gospel\n      and a Sabbatarian; Counterfeit Coin. 8 pp.\n\n  8.--The Sabbath Controversy: The True Issue. 4 pp.\n\n  9.--The Fourth Commandment: False Exposition. 4 pp.\n\n 10.--The True Sabbath Embraced and Observed. 16 pp.\n\n 11.--Religious Liberty Endangered by Legislative Enactments. 16 pp.\n\n 12.--Misuse of the term \"Sabbath.\" 8 pp.\n\n 13.--The Bible Sabbath. 24 pp.\n\n 14.--Delaying Obedience. 4 pp.\n\n 15.--An Appeal for the Restoration of the Bible Sabbath, in an\n      Address to the Baptists, from the Seventh-day Baptist General\n      Conference. 36 pp.\n\n 16.--The Royal Law contended for. By Edward Stennett. 60 pp.\n\n 17.--Vindication of the True Sabbath. By J. W. Morton, late Missionary\n      of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. 60 pp.\n\n\n\n\n[No. 1.]\n\nREASONS FOR INTRODUCING THE SABBATH OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT\n\nTO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC.\n\n NEW YORK:\n PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,\n No. 9 Spruce-Street.\n\n\nTo search for the knowledge of our duty, as subjects of the Divine\nGovernment, is of the highest importance to Christians and to all men.\n\"None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself,\" but\n\"whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.\" It behooves us,\ntherefore, to inquire, diligently and prayerfully, what God would have\nus to do, and how we may best glorify Him and save our generation? We\nshould \"seek wisdom as silver, and search for it as for hid treasure;\"\nand we should labor after the knowledge, not only of _some_ duties,\nbut of _every_ duty. \"Obey my voice,\" is the reiterated mandate of\nJehovah. To give full proof of our friendship for Christ, we must \"do\nwhatsoever he hath commanded us.\" Hence the importance of \"searching\nthe Scriptures,\" and of carefully pondering the testimonies of God.\nAll should pursue this course, and feel this responsibility; for\n\"every one of us shall give account of himself unto God.\" Hence the\npropriety and necessity, in many cases, of _individuals_ dissenting\nfrom the views and decisions of _collective bodies_, and of\n_minorities_ dissenting from _majorities_, and protesting against what\nthey discover to be erroneous, unequal, and oppressive, in their\nresolves and measures--accompanying the same with a particular\nstatement of their reasons. Such a course expresses a determination\n\"not to be partakers of other men's sins,\" and is often the means of\nleading to investigation and reform.\n\nThis duty is acknowledged, and this privilege is claimed, by the\nobservers of the _seventh day_, in relation to the subject of the\nSabbath. Compared with the many who assume the Christian name, we are\na _minority_--a _mere remnant_--and our reasons and motives for\ndissent from the great mass of believers, have been by most but\npartially, if at all, examined and weighed. Believing, as we do, that\nwe have a full and explicit Divine warrant for our practice, we regard\nit as our duty to make renewed efforts to sustain the claims of the\noriginal Sabbath of God's appointment, enlighten the public mind,\ndisarm our neighbors and fellow Christians of their prejudices, and\npromote a more thorough and impartial attention to this item of\nreligious practice. The object of this Tract is not to enter fully\nupon the proofs of our doctrine and practice, but to invite attention\nto the subject, and impress the reader with the importance of correct\nviews and of being sustained in Sabbath principles and efforts by an\nexplicit warrant from God himself, in order the more effectually to\nsecure the sanctification of this precious institution. Accordingly,\nwe proceed to state some of our Reasons for introducing the Sabbath of\nthe Fourth Commandment to the consideration of the Christian Public.\n\nI. The general concession that the weekly Sabbath is a needful, wise,\nand valuable institution. Being a weekly rest from secular business\nand labor, it contributes to the health and vigor both of man and\nbeast, encourages habits of cleanliness and decency, gives opportunity\nto cultivate the social virtues, makes man acquainted with man, and\ninspires a mutual regard for the interests of society; and, what is\nmuch more, it furnishes a proper and necessary season for mental\nimprovement, public worship and instruction, private meditation and\nself-examination, the training up of children in the knowledge of God\nand of Heaven, and the deepening of our impressions of the value of\ntime, and of the importance of preparing for eternity. These and\nsimilar considerations sensibly arrest the attention of sober and\nenlightened Christians, and secure a conscientious regard to the\ninstitution. This fact evinces the importance of being able to bring a\n_divine sanction_ for a day so evidently desirable, and so generally\nesteemed--of being assured that it rests upon no doubtful authority,\nthat it is not a mere human provision or a matter of expediency and\naccommodation, but that in observing it we are conforming to the\nclearly-manifested will of God. It is evident, that this consideration\nwill give a value to the institution which can be supplied by no\nother, and secure a love and respect for it, and a delight in it,\nwhich nothing else can so effectually produce. Hence the question is\npresented, with a high and impressive claim to a true and definite\nanswer, Is any other than the _seventh_ day of the week sustained by\nthe important and indisputable sanction of _divine authority_? If\nthis, and this only, be the Sabbath of God's appointment, for general\nand permanent use, then, by the substitution of another day, the\ninstitution is shorn of its chief excellence and force--yea, it is\nvirtually annulled. It no longer exists as God ordained it, for the\nexpress reason that he gave for it. This is a point which it becomes\nChristians seriously to look at.\n\nII. It is not the province of Rulers, Bishops, or Councils, to\nlegislate for the Church, and to bind the consciences of men in this\nor any other matter. Man's appointment of another day than the one\ncontained in the Divine Enactment, does not make it _the Sabbath of\nthe Lord_. It is only a _human law_, resting on _human authority_.\nTherefore, all attempts to enforce the observance of such an\ninstitution as being of divine authority, are calculated to mislead\nand ensnare souls. It is \"teaching for doctrine the commandments of\nmen.\" Our faith in this matter \"should not stand in the wisdom of men,\nbut in the power of God.\" The question is not, What day have men\njudged most proper? and, What reasons for the institution have they\ndeemed the most appropriate? and, What day have civil rulers\nsanctioned by their decrees and penalties?--but it is, What day has\nGod sanctified and blessed as a day of rest? It is manifest that no\nman should stop his inquiries until he is able to produce a clear\ndivine warrant for his practice.\n\nIII. The fact that there is a lamentable division among professors of\nreligion in regard to the true design of the weekly Sabbath, and the\nproper day to be observed, evinces the great importance of\ninvestigation, and of arriving at a correct knowledge of the Divine\nWill. This division is not likely to cease till a more general and\nthorough knowledge of the subject is obtained, and a deeper interest\ntherein is felt. Can it reasonably be supposed that the whole church\nwill become united in the observance of the _first_ day of the week,\nif it is not the Sabbath of the Bible? Will it ever be the case, that\nGod will have no witnesses for his own unrepealed and unadulterated\ninstitution?--none that shall call the Sabbath of his own appointment\n\"a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, and shall honor him\ntherein?\" No--this will never be! Admitting that the Sabbath of the\nfourth commandment is still binding, there is no doubt that there will\never be a remnant, at least, who will conscientiously observe it. For\nhis great name's sake, God will not suffer this prominent part of his\nlaw to be universally corrupted and profaned. And hence, if a\npreference continues to be given, as it is now, to a day which He has\nnot designated and made holy, there will, of necessity, be a\nprotracted division in the ranks of Zion, and the cause of the\nRedeemer will, on this account, continue to suffer. The faithful\nwitnesses will unquestionably continue to prophecy, though clothed in\nsackcloth, and to bear testimony against the innovation. And no\nearthly power can prevent them. Resolves, and proscriptions, and\ngibbets, will not wholly suppress their testimony in favor of the\nSabbath of the fourth commandment. Therefore, the occasion of the\npresent division must be put away by a general return to the\nuncorrupted appointment of God, or the same cause for regret and\nmourning which now exists will continue to afflict the church. Let\nthose who regard the unity and peace of Zion, seriously lay to heart\nthis consequence.\n\nIV. It must be admitted, that in so important a matter as a weekly\nSabbath, our great moral Legislator has sufficiently declared his will\nto enable honest and impartial inquirers to arrive at a true result.\nIf it would be reasonable to expect explicit information of his will\nconcerning any point, it would certainly be reasonable to expect it\nconcerning this, seeing the claims of this law would come in direct\ncontact with the cupidity of men, and sensibly influence the\narrangements of business and pleasure--yea, deeply affect the general\ninterests of society. Were the data furnished, from which\ncontemplative and well-disposed minds might _infer_ a weekly Sabbath,\nits observance and its ends could not be extensively secured without\nan _explicit_ warrant. Therefore, if God intended there should be a\nSabbath--yea, we might with propriety say, that if he intended his\nreligion and worship should be preserved in the world--he would have\ngiven an explicit law upon this subject--one, of course, which could\nbe easily discovered, and the permanent obligation of which could be\nreadily traced.\n\nV. It is an obvious _fact_, that God _has legislated_ upon this\nsubject--that he has once made a law for the observance of the\n_seventh day_ as a _weekly Sabbath_. He did this at the close of his\ncreative operations. Excepting marriage, the seventh-day Sabbath is\nthe oldest institution in the world. Moreover, God gave a new edition\nof this law at the promulgation of the Decalogue upon Mount Sinai,\nunder circumstances of peculiar and awful solemnity and majesty; first\npronouncing it, in connection with the other nine commandments, with\nan audible voice from the Mount, in the hearing of all Israel, amidst\nthunders, and flames, and tempests; and afterwards writing the _entire\nten_ on two tables of stone, for a perpetual rule of action. It is\nobvious, also, that _obedience_ to this institution, so solemnly\nstated and defined, and enforced by so plain and adequate a reason,\nwas regarded as a prominent item of duty, and received his _marked\napprobation_, whereas _disobedience_ received his _marked\ndisapprobation_. It is also clear, that good men throughout the times\nof the Old Testament were peculiarly zealous for this institution, and\nsought diligently to prevent its neglect or desecration, and to secure\nits legitimate advantages. Thus far all is plain, and is generally\nconceded.\n\nVI. It is a principle which no proficient in the science of\nGovernment, _divine_ or _human_, will deny, that a law, once enacted\nand in force, remains in force, unless repealed or amended by the same\nauthority which first enacted it. Hence, if the law respecting the\nseventh-day weekly Sabbath has not been repealed or amended by the\nsame authority which first enacted it, it still remains in full force\nand obligation, as originally given. This conclusion is _legitimate_,\n_necessary_, and _undeniable_. It is obvious to persons of every\ncapacity. And we here declare our deliberate and settled conviction,\nfrom a careful and thorough examination of the matter, that there has\nnever been any such repeal or amendment; hence, that our obligation,\nand that of all men, to keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment,\nremains without the least abatement. \"Till heaven and earth pass,\" we\nbelieve, according to the declaration of the Saviour, \"one jot or one\ntittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.\" We\nalledge, then, fearless of successful contradiction, that it _never\nhas been so repealed or amended_, and hence _is now binding_ upon the\nentire family of man.\n\nVII. From the nature of the case, and from God's declared will, and\nprocedure in other cases on scriptural record, it is evident that the\nsame divine authority is attached to _the day_ of the week to be\nobserved, as belongs to the _institution itself_, so that there is no\nroom to say, that if a _seventh pert_ of time is observed as a holy\nrest, it is not essential which day of the week is selected. When God\nappointed the Passover to be kept on the fourteenth day of the first\nmonth at even, the time of keeping it could not be changed to the\nthirteenth or fifteenth of the month, without disregarding his\nauthority. There was, indeed, a specified case in which those who were\nnot in the prescribed circumstances to keep the fast at the time\nappointed, might celebrate it on the fourteenth day of the second\nmonth at even. But without this express divine provision, no departure\nfrom the first arrangement would have been allowable. And when God\ncommanded Saul to slay the Amalekites, without exception, together\nwith the sheep and the cattle, it did not answer for him to spare\ntheir king, and \"the best of the sheep and the oxen for sacrifice.\"\nFor this deviation from the course prescribed, God pronounced him a\ntransgressor, and visited him in judgment, declaring that \"to obey is\nbetter than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.\" So when\nGod instituted a weekly Sabbath, and specified the seventh day for\nthat purpose, assigning a special and appropriate reason, it was\nmanifestly his will that that particular day should be observed; and\nthe substitution of another day, without subsequent instruction to\nthat effect, cannot be reconciled with a due regard for his supreme\nauthority. It is \"changing the ordinance, and breaking the everlasting\ncovenant.\"\n\nVIII. It is evident that the substitution of the _first_ day of the\nweek for the _seventh_, as a weekly Sabbath, which has been adopted by\nthe major part of the professors of Christianity, has presented, and\ncontinues to present, a formidable obstacle to the conversion of the\nJews, and the introduction of the millennium. It is well known, that\nthe Jews as a body are exceedingly tenacious of the Sabbath of the\nfourth commandment; that, with few exceptions, they have persevered\nfrom ancient times in its observance; and that they consider it a\nprominent article in the religion of their forefathers. This practice\nhas been unbroken in the nation from the time of the giving of the law\nupon Mount Sinai till the present day. There have been, indeed, many\ninstances of Sabbath-breaking among them, and at present there is\nreason to believe that the motives which govern them in its observance\nare sadly deficient. But the _practice itself_ is tenaciously adhered\nto, as required by the unrepealed law of the God of Israel. And, if\nour views are correct, they have the right of the case, and the\nmajority of Christians have corrupted the law. This, therefore, is a\nformidable obstacle to their embracing Christianity. To become\n_first-day_ Christians (and such compose a vast majority of\nprofessors) they must relinquish or change one of the precepts of the\nDecalogue, and dissent from a custom held sacred by their ancestors,\nand deeply venerated by themselves; and that, too, without seeing any\n_divine warrant_ produced for such a departure. This unauthorized\npractice of keeping the first instead of the seventh day of the week,\ncannot fail to prove a powerful objection in their view to embracing\nthe gospel of Jesus Christ. It is true that they are tenacious also of\nother practices enjoined in the Old Testament, which Christians justly\nregard as obsolete. But as to _these_, we can show authority for their\n_abrogation_. We can appeal to the New Testament records, and show\nthat the Mosaic _ritual_, \"the law of commandments contained in\nordinances,\" which constituted the enmity or separation between Jews\nand Gentiles, was abolished by the death of Christ--that \"he took it\nout of the way, nailing it to his cross.\" But the same course cannot\nbe successfully pursued with respect to the seventh-day Sabbath. The\nDecalogue in which this is found was not included in the abrogated\nritual. It is altogether a distinct thing, wherefore the Jews cannot\nbe met in the same way with regard to the weekly Sabbath as they can\nwith regard to the typical observances which had their accomplishment\nin Christ. Hence the stumbling-block remains. And yet those who\nobserve the first day are generally praying for and expecting the\nconversion of the Jews, and, in connection therewith, the millennial\nglory of the church. What an inconsistency is this! While they are\npraying for their national conversion and return to the land of their\nforefathers, and are beginning to use some other means for that end,\nthey, by their palpable violation of the law of the fourth\ncommandment, place a most formidable obstacle in their way, and pursue\na course calculated to augment their prejudices, confirm their\nunbelief, and retard the approach of millennial glory. To bring Jews\nand Gentiles together in the observance of the Sabbath, the one party\nor the other must materially change their practice. And which is it\nmost reasonable to expect will ultimately be compelled to make the\nchange--the _Jews_, who have the authority of God's example and\nexpress precept to sustain them, or the _Gentiles_, who can claim no\nsuch authority for a first-day Sabbath? Surely, we need not be at a\nloss for an answer. It is confidently believed, that this subject has\nno inconsiderable bearing upon the condition and prospects of the\nJews. If a few conversions are now effected among them, what might be\nexpected if Christians would remove the stumbling-blocks which their\nown errors have placed in their way? Would we enter an effectual plea\nin behalf of this wonderful and long-neglected people, we know not how\nwe could do it better than to plead for the observance of the Sabbath\nof the fourth commandment. Let those whose \"heart's desire and prayer\nto God for Israel is,\" like Paul's, \"that they might be saved,\" give\nthis subject a thorough and impartial consideration, and return to the\npath of strict obedience.\n\nIX. It is not to be expected, that an effectual check can be put to\nthe sin of Sabbath-breaking, till the duty of keeping the Sabbath is\nso taught, understood, and practiced, that the sanction of express\ndivine authority can be brought to bear upon it. Though a weekly rest\nbe profitable, both as it respects \"the life that now is, and that\nwhich is to come,\" there is much in the carnal views and inclinations\nof men to oppose it, to resist its restrictions, and to thwart its\npurposes. Hence powerful considerations and inducements are necessary\nto suppress its desecration, and insure its proper observance. Not\nonly the _unbelieving world_, but _Christians_, in their present\nimperfect state, need to have this institution thoroughly guarded to\nprevent its abuse. If it be considered as resting upon _doubtful\nauthority_; if it be viewed as sustained merely by _inference_, and\nthe _premises_ from which the inference is drawn be at best\nquestionable, and do not _necessarily_ authorize it; if the principal\nargument for it be founded on a supposed apostolic example of meeting\nfor public worship on the first day of the week, which is sustained\nonly by _two_ passages, while those _very passages_ fail to mark it as\n_a Sabbath_, or to give the least intimation of its having been\nintroduced as _a substitute_ for the former Sabbath, and even fail to\nimply, necessarily, that meetings of this description were _stated_\nand _general_ in the churches in the apostolic age; and if it be\nfound, from subsequent ecclesiastical history, that the first day,\ncalled Sunday and Lord's day, was not regarded by Christians in the\nfirst centuries after the apostles as _a Sabbath_, nor as _substituted\ntherefore_, but only as a _festival_ in commemoration of the\nresurrection--a _festival_ observed in connection with the Sabbath,\nbut not accompanied with a _resting from worldly labor_, till the time\nof Constantine the Great; yea, if but a part of those who are\nconsidered experimental Christians, look upon it _now_ as properly _a\nSabbath_, or day of _holy rest_, while others regard it merely as a\nday for _public worship_, and even such as call it a Sabbath conceive,\nin many instances, that the _strict_ observance formerly required is\nsomewhat _modified_; we can easily perceive, that it wants that\n_explicit sanction_--that _high_ and _overpowering authority_--which\nwill be likely to awe the public into obedience--which is necessary,\nindeed, to give Christians themselves a proper sense of its sanctity,\nand of the evil of its desecration--to induce them \"not to do their\nown ways, nor to find their own pleasure, nor to speak their own\nwords,\" in it. In vain do its friends procure for it the resolutions\nof churches and synods, the essays of the learned, and the decrees of\nthe State; if it fails of being expressly supported by the supreme\nauthority of God, to whom all must render a final and strict account,\nit will lack the main motive to obedience--it will be unattended with\nthat power which, above all others, acts upon the conscience, and\nmakes men feel their obligation. And as such authority does not\npertain to a first-day Sabbath, but is limited to the seventh day, it\nis manifest that no thorough check to Sabbath desecration can be\nimposed, till men change their views and practice, and place the\ninstitution on its original and proper basis.\n\nX. The power of custom, though sustained by ecclesiastical and civil\nenactments, and with corresponding forfeitures and penalties, ought\nnot to prevent investigation and discourage reform in this important\nmatter. When the claims of the original Sabbath are plainly presented,\nmany seem to be convinced of their justness; but, at the same time,\nthink that a general return to the observance of the seventh day is\nimpracticable. They alledge that the custom of keeping the first day\nhas been so long and so generally maintained--that it is so intimately\nwrought into the habits, calculations, and business of life--that it\nhas received such explicit sanction from the civil powers, obedience\nthereto being required by the authority of the State, and the\ndisobedient being subjected to civil pains and penalties--and that it\nis so often, ably, and pointedly vindicated by the first ministers,\nprofessors, and commentators in the popular churches, that it is in\nvain to expect a change, and that the cause of Sabbath-keeping is\nrather retarded than promoted by efforts to change the present custom.\nAnd it is highly probable that some, in view of these difficulties,\nforbear to give the subject a close investigation. But if the same\nviews and modes of reasoning had been adopted in other cases, what\nwould have become of the various reformations which are now\nestablished, and even triumphant? What would have become of the whole\nsubject of _Protestantism_? There is nothing more impracticable in a\nSabbath reform than in any other reform. In other cases, difficulties\nwhich at first seemed insurmountable, have given way to laborious,\nprayerful, and united efforts. And there is the same reason to believe\nthat they will give way in this, if a proper zeal is once awakened,\nand the friends of the Sabbath are resolved to examine the subject,\nbuild on the foundation of truth, and persevere in their labors, with\nunion and vigor, relying upon the protecting power and blessing of\nIsrael's God. It is manifest that no earthly consideration should\nimpede our investigation of this matter, that no array of opposition\nand discouragement should daunt us, and that no motives to sit still\nor pass along with the current of public opinion, if that be not\nfounded in truth, should be suffered to influence us, and detain us in\nthe wilderness of error. The cause of obedience is the cause of God,\nand we should steadfastly labor to promote it, and trust in him for\nultimate victory.\n\nXI. As a consequence of the foregoing principles and facts, we are\nconstrained to regard those who observe the first day of the week, to\nthe neglect of the seventh day, as having sadly deviated from the path\nof obedience, and we feel ourselves bound to admonish them, and labor\nrespectfully and kindly to reclaim them. We cannot think it\n_immaterial_ what day of the week is observed as a day of rest, when\nGod has specified the seventh, and _no other_, as a weekly Sabbath. We\ncannot think it a small matter to substitute the first day in the room\nof the seventh, although it be done in honor of the resurrection of\nour Lord, and because that event appears to demand equal and even\ngreater commemoration than the work of creation, so long as there is\nno divine warrant therefor. This appears to us to be making the wisdom\nof man the foundation of duty, and not the wisdom of God. We discover\n_two_ evils here; first, changing _the day_ without order or\npermission from God; and, secondly, changing _the reason_ for the\ninstitution, when the Lord hath not spoken. And is not this a\ndeparture from the rule of duty? And has not the Lord a controversy\nwith Zion for this? If God had seen fit to substitute the first day\nfor the seventh day, on account of the resurrection, (supposing it to\nhave occurred on the first day, which, however, is not certain,) and\nto assign another reason than the original one for keeping the\nSabbath, he would doubtless have given order to that effect. His not\nhaving done so, makes it manifest that he did not see fit to do this,\nand that he considered the former Sabbath as well adapted to celebrate\nthe work of redemption as it was the work of creation--adapted\nperfectly to subserve _all the purposes_ of a weekly Sabbath. And we\nfind this to be the case by experience. Here, therefore, we rest\nsatisfied with the divine arrangement, and feel deeply the importance\nof universal conformity thereto. Consequently, our regard for the\nhonor of God, and for the sabbatic institution, induces us to bring\nthis subject in the present form before the Christian public. We do\nnot think that we are justly chargeable with opposing or retarding the\npractice of Sabbath-keeping, because we protest against keeping the\nfirst day of the week as a divine institution, and faithfully present\nthe claims of the original Sabbath. What better course can we take to\nsecure a proper observance of the Sabbath, than to labor to restore it\nas God originally made it? It is not just to charge us with\n_Judaizing_--with virtually denying that Christ has come in the flesh\nand introduced the New Testament dispensation. We might as well be\ncharged with this for maintaining that men should not \"have any other\nGod before the Lord,\" or that they should \"not kill,\" nor \"steal.\"\nThese precepts are in close connection with that requiring the\nobservance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and _stand or fall with it_.\nThe truth of the case is, that the law containing the weekly Sabbath\nis the law both of the Old Testament and of the New. There is no\nChristian Sabbath distinct from the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.\nIf this be a correct view--and we see not how it can be gainsayed--we\nin this respect perform our duty as subjects of God's moral government\nonly when we exhort men to \"remember the Sabbath day, to keep it\nholy,\" and when we labor to impress them with the annexed fact, that\n\"the seventh day is the Sabbath.\"\n\nThese are some of our Reasons for introducing the subject of the\nSabbath, as originally given, to your consideration. And we seriously\nask you, whether they are not _sufficient_--whether they are not\n_adequate_ for earnestly and perseveringly inviting investigation and\nreformation. If there be any blame attached to us in the matter, it is\nfor not having labored more diligently and efficiently in this cause.\nAre we not dearly bound, by way of promoting inquiry and reform, to\nbear a more pointed testimony against the evil in question, and to\nvindicate the claims of the seventh-day Sabbath with more zeal and\nfirmness than ever before? Are we not peculiarly obligated to labor to\nremove, if possible, the veil which is upon the minds of the great\nmajority of professors of Christianity, correct the false notions\nreceived by tradition from 'the Fathers,' and effectually dispel the\ndelusion so extensively prevailing. We do not claim the right of\ndictating to the consciences of others. \"To their own Master they\nstand or fall.\" The only ground which we would assume is that which\nwas occupied by the Apostle Paul when he said, \"It is written, I have\nbelieved, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore\nspeak.\" And also by the Saviour, \"Let your light so shine before men,\nthat they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in\nHeaven.\" And again, \"Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do\nye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.\" Surely,\n\"the Lord hath spoken, and who can but prophesy?\" How can we bear to\nsee one of his commandments made void by human tradition?--to see the\nflock of Jesus divided concerning this question, where union is so\nnecessary and desirable?--to witness the unavoidable interruptions\noccasioned by the different parties, and the triumph of the\nadversaries of religion?--to observe those for whom Christ died\ngrossly misled by mistaken teachers, provoking the Most High by\nneglecting to keep a day which he has made sacred, and transferring\nthe sacredness of his own appointment to an ordinance of men, or, what\nis still worse, regarding the original institution as annulled, and\nplacing in its stead a day merely of memorial of the resurrection and\nof worship, divested of the main characteristics of the Sabbath, and\nresting upon no solid basis--its foundation, at best, being _mere\nprobability_ and _conjecture_? Must it not, of necessity, be very\npainful to us, to see those who are our neighbors, and by profession\nour fellow Christians, in a case so clear and important, and involving\nsuch high and permanent interests, contented with such evidence as\nthey would blush to introduce in relation to almost any other point?\nHow can we bear to see _Protestants_, whose avowed maxim is, that\n\"scriptural authority alone is sufficient to determine matters of\nfaith and duty,\" dispensing with their own rule, in not requiring\nexpressly a \"thus saith the Lord\" for their practice, and relying upon\nfar-fetched and inconclusive reasonings, and mere probabilities--yea,\nin some instances, by their own concession, going out of the Bible to\necclesiastical history, to find a warrant for observing the first day\nof the week, which warrant itself, even if proof from that source were\nallowable, is by no means adequate?\n\nDo we talk of reforming the church, while the guilt of disobedience in\nthis matter rests upon the great majority of her members?--while\nministers, doctors, and professors of divinity, break one of the\ncommandments of the Decalogue, and teach men so, and the multitude are\nwillingly obedient to their instructions? It is _preposterous_! A\nthorough reformation cannot be effected under such circumstances, or\nwhile things remain thus. It is time that it were more deeply laid to\nheart, that one of the leading objects of Christ's mission was to\n\"save his people from their sins\"--that \"he gave himself for us, that\nhe might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a\npeculiar people, zealous of good works\"--and that \"he that saith, I\nknow him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth\nis not in him?\" In view of such passages, although it be admitted that\noccasional mistakes and sins, being repented of, do not absolutely\ndivest men of the Christian character and hopes, it will appear, that\nobedience to the will of God is an indispensable requisite and\nall-absorbing consideration; and that, if any man be in Christ, he is\nverily \"a new creature\"--that he will be \"zealous of good works.\" One\nin ancient times, who was eminent for his religious knowledge,\nobserved, \"Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto _all_\nthy commandments.\" And this respect, or obedience, which constitutes\nthe moral purity and glory of Christians, and is the test of their\ndiscipleship, must be regulated and governed by the precepts of that\nvery law which contains the seventh-day Sabbath. There are, indeed,\nsome precepts peculiar to the gospel, such as \"repentance towards God,\nand faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ,\" \"Baptism,\" and \"the Lord's\nSupper.\" Nevertheless, \"the commandments of God,\" so often and so\nparticularly alluded to as the rule of Christian duty, are eminently\nthe precepts of the Decalogue--the \"_ten words_\" or \"_testimonies_\"\nwhich God spake with his own mouth, and wrote with his own finger, and\nno one of which has ever been erased from the sacred code, or\nundergone the least alteration; for \"the law of the Lord is _perfect_,\nconverting the soul.\" The keeping of the weekly Sabbath, therefore, as\nGod appointed it, and has continued it, enters vitally into the matter\nof holy obedience--the true test of Christianity. If the prescriptions\nof the fourth commandment are not faithfully adhered to, our obedience\nis imperfect. We are the proper subjects of reprehension, and may\nreasonably expect corresponding tokens of Divine displeasure.\nSabbath-keeping is peculiarly adapted to serve as a test of loyalty to\nGod, on account of its frequent occurrence, the weekly remission which\nit requires of secular business, the peremptory call which it makes on\nus to leave all our own works and ways for the special service of God,\nand the opportunity which it affords, amidst the common hurry and\nbustle of this world, to pause and examine our state and prospects for\neternity. It is well calculated for this, because it so clearly and so\noften teaches us that the will of God should govern all our actions.\nAll these and similar considerations, therefore, should combine to fix\nour attention to the very day of God's appointment, so that we may\nsensibly feel that we are governed by a divine warrant, and have the\nsublime pleasure of knowing that we are conforming to the will of God.\nTaking this course, we not only preserve a good conscience, but tread\nin the footsteps of God's redeemed flock. We imitate those who, in the\ntimes of the Old Testament, \"took pleasure in his holy day.\" We follow\nthe example of the Redeemer himself, who was a strict observer of the\nSabbath of the fourth commandment. His vindication of the disciples in\nthe case of \"plucking the ears of corn\" to satisfy their hunger, which\nsome have thought was a deviation from the strictness originally\nrequired, was in perfect accordance with the true intent and meaning\nof the law, else his obedience would have been imperfect, and thereby\nthe entire prospects of the Christian would have been blasted. Under\nthe circumstances, it was a work of absolute necessity, and therefore\nnot prohibited. As our Lord Jesus Christ was unquestionably a strict\nobserver of the seventh-day Sabbath, it is a commanding motive for a\ncontinued observance of it by his followers, there being no substitute\nappointed.\n\nThe Apostles, also, and primitive Christians, were conscientious\nobservers of this institution as originally delivered. The Sabbath so\noften mentioned in the apostolic records is unquestionably the\nseventh-day Sabbath. Who will dare deny this? And from ecclesiastical\nhistory it appears that the whole Christian church, with very few\nexceptions at most, kept the seventh-day Sabbath, in obedience to the\nlaw contained in the Decalogue, down to the time of Constantine, in\nthe fourth century, and even afterward. So true it is, that we imitate\nthe church in her primitive and purest times, in keeping the Sabbath\nof the fourth commandment. Under such circumstances, therefore, is it\nstrange that we should strenuously advocate the practice?--that we\nshould adhere to it amidst reproaches, privations, and suffering?--and\nthat we should feel the most ardent desire for the reformation of our\nbrethren who differ from us? The cause is sufficient to demand this\ndeep feeling, this unwearied effort, these prayers and tears, with a\nvast increase of holy sensibility, tenderness of conscience, and\nactive labor, to promote this branch of obedience. We therefore\nearnestly, and with all due respect, commend the subject to your\nnotice. Do not pass it by as a matter of little or no consequence. It\nsurely involves much that should be dear to the friends of Jesus, and\nthe advocates of pure morality--to such as would see the church appear\n\"fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with\nbanners.\" We entreat you, therefore, for the glory of God, the honor\nof his law and government, the unity and perfection of the church,\nyour own spiritual attainments and acceptance with God, the conversion\nand salvation of sinners, the triumph of truth over infidelity, the\nredemption of the long-neglected house of Israel, the hastening of\nmillennial prosperity, and the recompenses of eternity, to give this\nsubject a most serious consideration, to examine and weigh our proofs\nand arguments, and, if you find yourselves in error, as we confidently\nbelieve you will, to reform. With the high consideration in view, that\n\"wisdom's ways are pleasantness, and all her paths are peace,\" and\nthat to pursue them \"is for your life,\" we invite and seek your\nrecovery to sound views and practice in this matter. We \"long after\nyou in the bowels of Jesus Christ,\" regarding him as \"the Lord of the\nSabbath,\" not to repeal or change the sacred institution, but to\nprotect it, and enforce obedience thereto. Firmly believing that \"we\nare not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,\" we cannot by\nany means discharge our own convictions at this eventful period, this\nremarkable age of attempted reform, without using all the persuasion\nin our power to promote an investigation of this matter.\n\nWe behold with sincere gratification the efforts which have been made,\nand are being made, in regard to other subjects of special importance\nto the church and the world. We would cordially co\u00f6perate with their\nrespective advocates in securing, as far as practicable, a strict\nobedience to other moral precepts, and in emancipating the human mind\nfrom sin and error. But we cannot forget that God has given a\n_fourth_, as well as a _first_, a _sixth_, a _seventh_, and a _tenth_\ncommandment, and that it rests upon equal authority with those, and\nwith either of the precepts of the Decalogue; and hence we plead in\nits behalf. We do this as moral and accountable beings, as\nProtestants, as Christians, as reformers, and as cotemporaries of our\nbrethren in the nineteenth century, a period so distinguished for its\nmoral and political enterprises, and for its proximity to the time\nwhen it shall be said, \"The kingdoms of this world are become the\nkingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.\" We approach you in the belief\nthat \"open rebuke is better than secret love\"--that \"faithful are the\nwounds of a friend\"--and that we \"should admonish one another daily,\nand so much the more as we see the day approaching.\" We feel bound to\nexert ourselves in this cause, in the belief that \"our labor will not\nbe in vain in the Lord,\" that the church is \"coming up out of the\nwilderness,\" and that we live in the dawn of a brighter day, in a\nperiod of the world when the scriptures and the providences of God\nconcur in affording the highest encouragement to the faithful\nadvocates of truth and duty. And we do not hesitate to express our\nexpectation, that by the blessing of God upon the well-directed and\npersevering labors of his people, and the continued and augmenting\nspirit of inquiry, there will soon be achieved a glorious reformation\nin respect to the subject of this Tract. God will \"overturn, and\noverturn, and overturn, till He shall come, whose right it is,\" and\n\"the sanctuary shall be cleansed.\"\n\nFinally--we enter our testimony in what we deem an important case, in\nthe hope, through grace, of meeting all \"the faithful in Christ Jesus\nin the everlasting rest,\" of which the rest of the seventh day is a\nlively and touching type and foretaste.\n\n Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,\n No. 9 Spruce Street, New York.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SABBATH:\n\nITS MORAL NATURE AND OBSERVANCE\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nTHE SABBATH NOT CEREMONIAL.\n\nIt is disputed whether the weekly Sabbath is an essential part of what\nis generally called the Moral Law, which the Holy Ghost declares to be\n\"spiritual--holy, and just, and good;\" or whether it is to be classed\namong the ceremonial institutions, which were \"a shadow of things to\ncome.\" If the latter position can be established, it can be of no use\nwhatever to perpetuate the Institution under the New Dispensation. It\ncan neither be promotive of the spirituality and growth of the body of\nChrist, nor even conservative of the morals of the community. To\nsuppose that the church cannot enjoy all necessary prosperity, and\nattain its millennial glory by the use of New Covenant ordinances\nalone, but must borrow a little help from the abrogated rites of the\nOld Economy, is most anti-evangelical. Gal. iii.\u00a03. The church needs\nnothing for the nourishment of its piety, except such means as have\nthe entire sanction of the \"better covenant.\" Moses is dead, and the\nLord has buried him. He cannot load us into the promised inheritance.\nWe have only to follow our Joshua, even Jesus, \"the Son who is\nconsecrated forevermore.\"\n\nNor can \"the weak and beggarly elements\" be of service to promote the\nmorals of the community. Where do we find the most elevated and pure\nmorality, that which is refined from all selfishness? We find it only\nin real Christians. The source, and life, and power of it is the\nAtonement of their Great High-Priest, and the grace which is by Him.\nTheir obedience to all moral precepts is the obedience of _faith_,\neven faith in his sacrifice. In proportion as their faith is strong,\nand their dependence on Him entire, to the exclusion of all reliance\nupon their own merit, so is their moral conduct irreproachable. It is\nnot by any resort to the \"weak and unprofitable commandment,\" that\ntheir morality acquires such excellence. As for that inferior kind of\nmorality, which obtains among unbelievers, however profitable it may\nbe to human society, it is but the mimic representation of that which\nis practiced by the godly. For its very existence it is dependent on\nChristianity, from whose influence if it recede, it becomes withered\nand perishes. Transplanted to a heathen soil, it cannot live. As,\ntherefore, the general morals of the community are traceable to the\ngospel as their first cause, and are kept in credit only by its\nnurturing influence, it would be at war with sound reason to suppose,\nthat they could be promoted by such things as are destructive of the\npurity of the gospel itself. They will be much safer, if left wholly\nto the nurturing influence of that system, which is declared to be\n'complete and faultless,--the power and the wisdom of God.' Wherefore,\nif the weekly Sabbath was a ceremonial Institution, we have no use for\nit, either as it respects the church, or the world. It is an injury\nrather than a benefit.\n\nBut if, on the other hand, the Sabbath is a part of God's holy, and\njust, and good law, to which nothing but the carnal mind refuses\nsubjection, Rom. viii.\u00a07, it must be an institution of lasting value,\nto dispense with which is dangerous in the extreme. For the\ntransgression of this law is sin, 1\u00a0John iii.\u00a04, and the wages of sin\nis death, Rom. vi.\u00a023.\n\nThat the Sabbath was not a ceremonial institution, is proved from the\nfact that it was given to man before his Apostacy, Gen. ii.\u00a01-3. There\nhe had no need of a Redeemer, for he bore the image of his Maker in\nrighteousness and true holiness. If man in his original state of\nuprightness had no need of a Redeemer, he certainly had no need of a\ntype of the Redeemer. Types, in such a case, were unmeaning things, or\nelse a source of vexation and horrible forebodings. If he understood\ntheir meaning, he could never look upon them, without thinking of the\nawful ruin into which he must soon be plunged by the fall. But this\nwould both operate as a discouragement to all endeavors at\nsteadfastness, and at the same time would exhibit the All-Benevolent\nGod as marring the happiness of an innocent creature;--an idea never\nto be admitted. We conclude, therefore, that the Sabbath, as\noriginally instituted, possessed nothing of a ceremonial character.\nTypical institutions were introduced _after_ the fall, to explain to\nruined man the nature of that redemption of which he stood in need,\nand which in the fulness of the time would be provided for him. They\nwere for his encouragement and consolation:--not to mar his happiness,\nbut to promote it.\n\nTo evade the force of this argument, some contend that the Sabbath was\nnot actually instituted and given to man in Paradise; that the\nsanctification of it mentioned by Moses, signifies only that\nappointment then made of the seventh day, to be afterwards solemnized\nand sanctified by the Jews. But the utter futility of this objection\nappears from our Savior's declaration that \"the Sabbath was made for\nman.\" Mark ii.\u00a027. If it was made for man, it was made for him _as_\nman; the very word denoting mankind at large, or rather, referring to\nthe first man as the representative of the whole human race. It was\nmade for him as a human, rational, intelligent creature; for his\nbenefit _as such_, without reference to the particular nation or\ncountry to which he might belong. If it was made for his benefit, is\nit reasonable to suppose that it was, nevertheless, kept in abeyance\nfor twenty-five hundred years? Made for man, and yet not given to him!\nThe world teeming with human beings, and yet the very institution that\nwas designed for their temporal and spiritual welfare, kept from them\nfor more than two thousand years, and then given only to an isolated\npeople forming but a fraction of the human race! The idea is monstrous\nabsurdity. An institution so important to the interests of humanity,\nof civilization, and of religion, was wanted immediately, as well as\nat the distance of two thousand years afterwards.\n\nThe objection is farther confuted by a consideration of the reason\nwhich enforces the institution. The reason is, \"that God rested on the\nseventh day from all his work which he had made.\" The natural\ninference is, that the institution existed from the time the reason of\nit did. Human legislators, it is true, may not enact a law, until long\nafter a good reason exists for doing so; because they may be blind to\nthe existence of such a reason, and slow to discover it. But not so\nwith God. If the work of creation, and his resting from it on the\nseventh day, is at any period of the world a good reason that man\nshould rest on that day, it was a good reason from the beginning. It\nwas good as soon as there were men to do it. So that what was then\ntheir reasonable service, could not have been deferred for twenty-five\nhundred years. Nay, it may be safely affirmed, that the reason for\nkeeping the Sabbath possessed more cogency at the beginning than it\ndid afterwards. For in after ages sin had marred and defaced the\nAlmighty's work. Nevertheless, if when sin had marred it, there was\nstill good reason for keeping the memorial of it, much more was there\ngood reason for doing so, when it was in all its original glory. In\nwhat respect does or did this reason concern the Jews more than any\nother part of mankind? Do not Gentiles stand on the same level with\nthem in respect of their being a part of God's creation? Have they not\nas much interest in creation as the Jews? \"Is He the God of the Jews\nonly? Is He not of the Gentiles also?\"\n\nThe reasons for such institutions as were enjoined on the Jews\nparticularly, were derived from considerations in which they as a\npeople had a special and peculiar interest. Now the Sabbath, it is\ntrue, is in one place enforced upon them by a consideration of this\nkind, viz. their redemption from bondage in Egypt, Deut. v.\u00a015. But\nwhile this laid the Jews under a special and peculiar obligation to\nregard the institution, it does not forbid the idea that they were\nalso under obligations of a general nature, which concern all mankind\nalike. So too, the Christian church is under a special obligation too\nkeep this sacred day, because of its interest in the blood of\nredemption. But to infer from this, that the common obligation under\nwhich all others are held is canceled, and that none are bound to keep\nit except the blood-bought church of God, would be in the last degree\nillogical, as well as unscriptural.\n\nLet it be observed, that the language of the sacred historian: \"God\nblessed the seventh day and sanctified it\"--is no more qualified, than\nthat which speaks of his resting. With reference to this, his language\nis explicit,--\"He rested on the seventh day from all his work which he\nhad made.\" In face of such a declaration, nothing but folly would say,\nthat God did not actually rest on the seventh day of creation, but\nwaited until the Jews were called out of Egypt. God certainly did rest\non the seventh day of creation. If the ordinary construction of\nlanguage is to be employed in reference to this, it must be employed\nin reference to his blessing and sanctifying it also. Wherefore, as\nGod rested on the seventh day of creation, he blessed and sanctified\nthat day, even that very day on which he rested. \"God blessed the\nseventh day, and sanctified it, because that in _it_, (the very day\nwhich he so blessed and sanctified,) he had rested from all his work\nwhich God created and made.\" Gen. ii.\u00a03.\n\nThe act of blessing and sanctifying the day can import nothing else\nthan constituting it a Sabbath. For to sanctify, undoubtedly, is to\nset apart for a holy use. It refers to some line of conduct to be\nobserved by men towards that day. The expression, \"God blessed it,\"\nmust mean that he rendered it a day peculiarly happy and beneficial\nfor man. For whenever God blesses an object, whether it be a person or\nan inanimate thing--a rational creature or the brute creation--he\nconnects with his blessing certain favors which would otherwise not be\nbestowed, and renders the object serviceable for the promotion of\ncertain purposes which would not result without his blessing. A few\nexamples will render this perfectly clear. Thus, when he blessed the\nfirst human pair, and the brute creation, he bestowed on them the\npower to be \"fruitful and multiply.\" When the ground receiveth\nblessing from God, it bringeth forth herbs, meet for them by whom it\nis dressed. When it is cursed, it bears thorns and briars, Heb. vi.\u00a07,\n8. Gen. xxvii.\u00a027. Lev. xxv.\u00a021. Mal. iii.\u00a010. When God blessed\nAbraham, he bestowed on him a numerous posterity, with Canaan for an\ninheritance, and counted his faith for righteousness. In blessing\nSamson, Judges xiii.\u00a024, he endowed him with an heroic spirit,\nsingular valor, miraculous strength of body, and all other gifts and\ngraces necessary to his calling. When he blesses the church, he\nbestows spiritual blessings in Christ, Eph. i.\u00a03. Numerous other\nexamples might be adduced: but these are sufficient to show, that in\nconnection with the Divine blessing, special favors are always\nbestowed. We therefore argue, that when it is said, \"God blessed the\nseventh day,\" it can mean nothing less than that he connected with it\nfavors and benefits above what are connected with any other day, and\nthat he bestows them abundantly upon those who keep it, and delight in\nit, Isa. lviii.\u00a013. He renders the day serviceable for the promotion\nof the spiritual and temporal welfare of man. For it can by no means\nbe supposed, that God proposed to render homage to himself, or to\nbless himself. It must be man, for whom the Sabbath was made, Mark\nii.\u00a027, that stands in need of the blessing, and who is bound to make\na holy use of the day.\n\nThe foregoing remarks are judged sufficient to destroy the notion of\nthe Sabbath being a ceremonial institution. But we will not yet\ndismiss the subject. If it was a ceremony, why was its importance\nmagnified above all the other ceremonies? Why that pre-eminence and\nsanctity, which it had above all other types? It rears its head high\nabove all the ritual institutions, and holds this superiority\nthroughout the whole Mosaic Economy. Not only is it counted worthy of\nbeing graven by the finger of God upon the stone tablets, thus having\nthe same honor as all the other precepts of the Decalogue, which are\nconfessedly moral; but even where it appears in combination with the\nceremonial usages, its great importance as a moral institute directed\nto the highest ends, is clearly exhibited.\n\n\"For first, after the record of the promulgation of the Decalogue,\nthree chapters of judicial statutes follow; but in the midst of these,\nthe people are reminded of the essential importance of the Sabbath, in\na manner quite distinct and peculiar. It is associated with the\nprimary duty of worshiping the one true God, as of equal obligation,\nand indeed as necessary to it. 'Six days shalt thou do thy work, and\non the seventh thou shalt rest, * * in all things that I have said\nunto thee, be circumspect, and make no mention of the name of other\ngods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth,' Exod. xxiii.\u00a012, 13.\nThis is sufficiently remarkable.\n\n\"Again, after six chapters more concerning the tabernacle and its\nvarious sacrifices, the whole communication of the forty days' abode\non the mount is concluded with a re-inculcation of the Sabbath-rest,\nin a manner the most solemn and affecting. 'And the Lord spake unto\nMoses saying, verily my Sabbath ye shall keep; for it is a sign\nbetween me and you throughout your generations, THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT\nI AM THE LORD THAT DOTH SANCTIFY YOU. Ye shall keep the Sabbath,\ntherefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that defileth it shall\nsurely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that\nsoul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be\ndone; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord;\nwhosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath-day, he shall surely be put to\ndeath. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to\nobserve the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual\ncovenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever,\nfor in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day\nhe rested and was refreshed.' Exod. xxxi.\u00a012-17. Can anything give\ndignity to the sacred day, as founded in the essential relation of man\nto his Maker and Redeemer, if this sublime language does not? Every\nidea of sanctification, every sense of importance from a sign of a\ncovenant between God and man, every sanction derived from the awful\npunishment of death, unite to impress upon us the duty; whilst the\nproportion noted between the working days and the day of rest, and the\nreason drawn from the order of creation, extend the obligation to\nevery human being.\"[1]\n\nThis great prominence which the Sabbath had amidst all the ceremonial\nlaws, was equivalent to an intimation that the ritual service must\nnever take the precedence of moral duties; that in the multitude of\ntheir offerings and shadowy service, the worshipers must still\nremember that true holiness does not consist in them, but in something\nhigher; and that all their conformity to the ritual service must\nproceed upon moral footing, otherwise it is abomination in the sight\nof God.\n\nBut come with me, reader, a little farther, and see how the scriptures\nmagnify the Sabbath at the very time they comparatively underrate the\nimportance of ceremonial observances. Compare carefully Isa. i.\u00a011-14,\nwith chapters lvi.\u00a01-8, and lviii.\u00a013, 14, of the same prophecy. See\nhow in the one case the ritual service is degraded, and in the other\nthe Sabbath is exalted, and the holy keeping of it made the condition\non which depends the acceptance of their burnt-offerings and\nsacrifices. Consider the language of Jeremiah. chap. xvii.\u00a019-27. Read\nthe passage with care, and see how all the prosperity of the nation,\nall the favor of God, is suspended on this one branch of moral\nobedience; with which compare his language concerning ceremonial\nobservances. \"For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in\nthe day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning\nburnt-offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them,\nsaying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my\npeople; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it\nmay be well unto you,\" Jer. vii.\u00a022, 23. A comparison of these\npassages shows that Sabbath-breaking stood upon the same level with\nthe breach of all moral precepts, and characterized them as a\ndisobedient and rebellious people; while the neglect of ceremonial\nobservances is classed in a different category. Ezekiel follows in the\nsame strain, chap. xx.\u00a012, 13, 16. In the book of Psalms too, we have\nthe Sabbath and its holy duties and pleasures extolled, Ps. xcii,\nwhile ceremonies are depreciated, Ps. 1. 8, 14, li.\u00a016, 17. And what\nwas the great reformation which the prophets after the captivity\nsought to accomplish? Was not Sabbath-breaking the crying sin upon\nwhich they dwelt? Look at the holy zeal of Nehemiah. His faithful and\nsearching rebukes proceed not upon their omission of ceremonial\nduties, but upon their neglect of the great and paramount duty of\nkeeping the Sabbath, Neh. xiii.\u00a015, 21, 23. In view of these scripture\nreferences, does the Sabbath look like a ceremony--a shadow--a mere\nelement of the world, weak and beggarly!\n\nAgain, if the Sabbath was a part of the ceremonial law, why was Christ\nat such pains to regulate the manner of observing it? Matt. xii.\u00a01,\n13. Why so careful to modify the false usages that obtained? Why did\nhe lay down distinctions between what is lawful to be done, and what\nis unlawful? Was this his manner when any thing ceremonial was the\nsubject of dispute? Do we not find him, in such cases, waiving the\nsubject at issue, in order to inculcate matters of lasting importance?\nHow was it in his interview with the Samaritan woman? John iv. Her\nquestion in regard to the proper place of worship was merely of a\nceremonial nature, yet it had been hotly disputed between her nation\nand the Jews. Does Jesus become an umpire in the case? No. The\nceremonial institutions were about to vanish away; He himself came to\nend them. Therefore he occupies himself, not in settling the litigated\nquestions that grew out of them, but in preaching great and\neverlasting truths. In regard to the Moral Law, however, he is at\nespecial pains to vindicate if from all Pharisaic austerities, to\nremove all false glosses, and to assert its everlasting equity and\nglory. Witness his admirable exposition of it in his sermon on the\nmount. Witness too, his exposure of the hypocritical tradition\nconcerning the fifth commandment. Matt. xv.\u00a01-9. With this, his\nvindication of the Sabbath, his care to purge it from traditional\ncorruptions, is perfectly parallel. But what sane mind ever thought\nthat he proclaimed the fifth commandment to be of a ceremonial nature?\nYet, strange to say, the precisely similar course which he took in\nregard to the Sabbath, has, by some, been made an argument that he\nabolished it as nothing but a Jewish ceremony.\n\n'But drowning men catch at straws.' In spite of the overwhelming proof\nthat the Sabbath had its origin before ceremonial observances could,\nwith any reason, have been introduced, it is contended that it must\nhave been merely a Mosaic institution, because no mention is made of\nits observance from the creation down to the time of the exodus of the\nIsraelites from Egypt. It is asked, 'whether men during all that time,\nthough otherwise so wicked, sanctified the Sabbath so universally and\nperfectly, that not one among them ever needed an excitement to duty,\nor a reproof for the neglect of it.' But to this question, however\ntriumphantly proposed, we are as ready to answer, No, as the objector\nhimself. That the great mass of men, during all this time, were wicked\nand sinners before the Lord exceedingly, is admitted. But because they\nwere not particularly reproved for Sabbath-breaking, no more proves\nthat it was not a sin cognizable by the moral law, than the fact of\nGod's winking at the times of the Gentiles' ignorance and idolatry,\nActs xvii.\u00a030, proves that their conduct was not cognizable as a sin\nagainst his law. If God passed over the Sabbath-breaking of those who\nlived in the first ages of the world without particularly taking\nnotice of it, the same may be said of his carriage towards the Gentile\nworld, in reference to _all_ their wickedness for four thousand years.\nBesides, is not the drunkeness of Noah passed over without reproof? Is\nnot Lot's incest with his daughters?--and Jacob's cheating Esau of the\npatrimony?--and the plurality of the patriarchs' wives? Were these\nthings not contrary to the Divine Law, because they were \"winked at?\"\nOr, to come to cases still more in point, we observe that the silence\nof scripture respecting the observance of the Sabbath during the\nante-Mosaic age, is no more than what occurs in regard to the period\nbetween Moses and the time of David, near four hundred years. Yet who\never doubted that it was observed during all this time? So also the\nrite of circumcision is not so much as alluded to from a little after\nthe death of Moses, till the days of Jeremiah, a period of eight\nhundred years or more. Nor is the ordinance of the red heifer once\nmentioned from the Pentateuch till the close of the Old Testament. But\nwho doubts the constant observance of these ceremonies? The objection,\ntherefore, which is raised from the silence of Scripture, has no force\nwhatever.\n\nBut whoever considers the very concise manner in which events are\nnarrated in scripture, and that the history of two thousand years is\nall compressed within the compass of fifty short chapters, occupying\nabout as many pages, will cease to wonder that no notice is taken of\nthe observance of the Sabbath by the pious patriarchs. This very\nconciseness is a sufficient solution to a candid mind, without\nresorting to the supposition that there was no observance of the\ninstitution. Moreover, any one that peruses with attention the\naccounts of pious characters contained in the word of God, will see\nthat no express mention is made of their acts of religion, unless\nsomething remarkable attaches to them.[2] Abraham's faith is\nmentioned, because it was remarkable. So of Abel, of Noah, and of\nEnoch. But in regard to their observance of the Sabbath in particular,\nit is not probable that anything remarkable or extraordinary was\nconnected with it, rendering it of sufficient importance to the world\nat large to be recorded.\n\nThe position that we have taken is, that the Sabbath was instituted in\nParadise, when man was innocent; that it was binding before Judaism\nhad any existence. We have seen that the silence of scripture as to\nany reproof given to the transgressor of it, does not shake this\nposition; that its silence as to any commendation bestowed upon the\npious for keeping it, does not shake it; and that its entire silence\nis no more than what obtains with regard to the Sabbath from Moses to\nDavid, or with regard to circumcision from Joshua to Jeremiah, or with\nregard to the red heifer from Moses to the end of the Old Testament.\nIs there any thing yet remaining to weaken the force of our arguments?\n\nIn the opinion of our opponents there is one thing more. It is argued,\nfrom Ex. xvi., that the Sabbath was first made known to the Israelites\nin the wilderness, by the falling of the manna. But we can discover\nnothing in the whole history of the matter, as given by Moses, which\nintimates that the Sabbath was then made known for the first. On the\ncontrary, the abruptness of the reference implies very strongly the\nprevious knowledge of it. This idea receives strong confirmation from\nthe fact, that when the people were reminded of the institution,\nnothing was said to them concerning the reason of its being their duty\nto keep it; which would hardly have been the case, had the subject\nbeen then presented to them for the first time. For it is worthy of\nnote, that God condescends to give the reason of this command; a thing\nwhich he does not for moral precepts in general. He gives the reason,\nbecause man cannot discover it for himself, it being purely a matter\nof revelation that God made the world in six days, and rested on the\nseventh. Whereas, other moral precepts are more readily discoverable\nfrom the light of nature. Now, if God condescends in any place, and at\nany time, to give the reason for a command, we might expect it would\nbe at the time of its first promulgation. In Gen. ii., where we\nsuppose the law to be first given, the reason accompanies it; but in\nthe passage now under consideration it does not.\n\nAgain, it is nowhere in the context intimated that the object of\ngiving the manna was to make known the Sabbath. On the contrary, the\ndeclared object of supplying their wants in this miraculous manner,\nwas to make the Israelites know that it was the Lord Jehovah who\nbrought them out of Egypt, v.\u00a06, and not Moses and Aaron, as they\nintimated, v.\u00a03, to make them know that the Lord was their God, v.\u00a012,\nand to prove them, whether they would manifest their gratitude for his\nmerciful interposition in their favor, by walking in his law, or no,\nv.\u00a04. This was the express and primary object. To make known the\nSabbath is not even hinted as having been the _subordinate_, much less\nthe _principal_ object.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nARGUMENT FROM THE DECALOGUE.\n\nWe commenced this essay with the design of showing that the Sabbath is\na necessary part of the immutable law of God--that law which is \"holy,\nand just, and good;\" which is \"spiritual;\" to which nothing is opposed\nbut that which is carnal. Hitherto, we have rested none of our proofs\nupon the fact, that it was incorporated in the Decalogue; that it is\none of the TEN WORDS \"which God spake in the Mount, out of the midst\nof the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great\nvoice; and he added no more.\" Deut. v.\u00a022. For to assume that the\nDecalogue, as such, is the moral law, and that the Sabbath, because it\nmakes a part of it, is therefore everlastingly binding, may not be\nsatisfactory to some of our readers.\n\nThat the Decalogue, as such, held a peculiar aspect towards the Jews,\ndifferent from that which it holds towards any others, is freely\nadmitted. It made a part of their civil code; it was incorporated with\ntheir political laws, and, therefore, temporal penalties were annexed,\nwhich were inflicted by the civil magistrate. Offences against the\nmost of its precepts were punishable by death, Sabbath-breaking not\nexcepted. Hence some contend that these precepts ought not to be\ncalled, by way of eminence, \"_the_ Moral Law;\" that the fact of their\nhaving been graven upon stone, and given under circumstances of\ngreater pomp and glory than the other precepts of the Old Testament,\nconstitutes no solid argument for their being so called. The greater\nglory of their promulgation from the Mount of God, is supposed to be\nsufficiently accounted for, by considering them as the _Constitution_,\nor _Grand Platform_, upon which was based the whole of that system\nwhich was peculiar to the Jews. The Decalogue, therefore, is supposed\nto bear about the same relation to the other precepts spoken by Moses,\nas _constitution_ bears to _statute law_. This view is thought to be\nfavored by those passages which call the stone tables \"the tables of\nthe Covenant.\" Heb. ix.\u00a04. Hence, as they say, the Covenant being\nabrogated, the tables of the Covenant are set aside also; on the same\nprinciple that when a political government is dissolved the\nconstitution is of no farther use.\n\nUpon this seemingly plausible argument we offer the following remarks:\n\n1. Admitting that the Decalogue is the grand constitution of the\nJewish polity, and that it has an excellence over the other precepts\nspoken by Moses, precisely like that of constitution over statute law;\nstill we think it could not, in the nature of things, be any thing\nless than a code of morals. There was a necessity of the strongest\nkind, that it should embody all the essential elements of the moral\nlaw. For, as obedience to statute law must proceed from constitutional\nprinciples, so the obedience of the Israelites to the whole system of\nMoses must proceed upon moral footing. Any other obedience than\nthis--any obedience which is of an inferior kind, God does not\nrequire, and cannot, consistently with his holy nature. No matter what\nis the nature of the precepts He gives, obedience to them must be upon\nmoral principle. A love for the great principles of righteousness must\nregulate it all; for this only is the pledge that they will rigidly,\nand without deviation, conform to any system that He enjoins upon\nthem. Therefore, the Moral Law, or rather the essential elements of\nit, go before all the other laws He gave to the children of Israel. If\nthey will keep this law, which they promised to do, Exod. xix.\u00a08, it\nis a pledge that they will keep all the rest.\n\n2. Though the covenant character of the Decalogue is abolished, by\nreason of the Sinaitic Covenant being entirely abrogated, the moral\ncharacter of it remains untouched, and just the same as it was before\na covenant was based upon it. Hence, though we are under no covenant\nobligation to its precepts, we are under a moral obligation to them.\nThe Jews were under a covenant obligation to the Decalogue, brought\nupon them by the transaction at Sinai. But Jews and Gentiles were\nalike under moral obligation to its precepts, antecedently to the\ncovenant made at Sinai. Let men learn to distinguish between covenant\nobligation and moral obligation, and they will have no difficulty on\nthis point.[3]\n\n3. If the covenant character of the Decalogue is abolished, and all\ncovenant obligation destroyed along with it, of course those temporal\npenalties which were annexed to its precepts are also abolished. But\nthe moral penalty, the death of the soul, remains to be inflicted upon\nevery impenitent transgressor. Hence the Sabbath-breaker, as well as\nthe idolator, the profane swearer, and the adulterer, though not\nobnoxious to death, as the despiser of Moses' law, is yet obnoxious to\nthe curse of God, and must inherit it by being punished with\neverlasting destruction from His presence, and from the glory of His\npower.\n\nWhat is it then? Not only do the ten commandments possess a moral\ncharacter, independent of their inscription upon the stone tablets, as\nthe grand constitutional platform of the Jewish Theocracy; but they\npossess this moral character BECAUSE they compose this constitution.\nFor the constitution, as we have already proved, could not, in the\nnature of things, be any thing else than a summary of moral precepts.\nTherefore, as the Sabbath is one of these precepts, it is a part of\nthe moral law, and remains of everlasting force and obligation.\n\nIn our defense of the ten commandments, we do _not_ \"contradistinguish\nthem from the rest by calling the former exclusively _the_ moral law,\nand all the other divine instructions of the Jews, through Moses,\n_the_ ceremonial law.\" We not only admit, but strongly insist, that\nmoral duties are inculcated elsewhere besides in the Decalogue. \"When\nthe Jews are told, Exod. xxii.\u00a022, _Ye shall not afflict any widow or\nfatherless child_, we need no scholastic definitions to enable us to\nrecognize this as a part of the moral code.\"[4] But we _do_ suppose\nthat the Decalogue comprises the _elementary principles_ of the moral\nlaw. We suppose, that whatever moral duty is inculcated elsewhere, it\nis deducible from one or other of the ten commandments. We can hardly\nimagine a single condition in which it is possible for man to be\nplaced in this life, or a relation that he sustains, which is not\ncognizable by this code.\n\nOur doctrine receives strength from the prominence given to the\nDecalogue in the New Testament. No small degree of honor is put upon\nit by the Savior, in his Sermon on the Mount, an important part of\nthat celebrated discourse being occupied with expositions of its\nprecepts, and applications of them to the conduct of men, as the\nsubjects of God's moral government. Again, when the young man came to\nChrist, and asked, \"What good thing shall I do that I may inherit\neternal life,\" he was told to keep the commandments. That by these\nwere meant the precepts of the Decalogue, is evident from the Savior's\nimmediately beginning to quote those precepts. Matt. xix.\u00a016-19. The\nfact that they were enjoined with reference to _eternal_ life, proves\nconclusively that their bearing was not merely upon the conduct of men\nas citizens of the Jewish commonwealth, but upon their conduct as\nmoral and accountable creatures.[5] Again, when the Apostle inculcates\nthose duties which are the mark of love to our neighbor, he quotes the\nprecepts of the second table of the Decalogue. Rom. xiii.\u00a09. It is\nevident, also, that Paul refers particularly to the Decalogue as the\nlaw which convinced him of sin. Rom. vii.\u00a07. For he cites the tenth\nprecept of it, as showing him that strong desire after things\nforbidden is sin. This is the commandment which, being powerfully\napplied to his heart, made sin to revive, and he died: ver. 9. Hence\nhe includes the Decalogue, when he speaks of that law which is\n\"spiritual, and holy, and just, and good:\" vs. 12, 14; to which the\ncarnal mind, refusing subjection, is therefore enmity against God.\nRom. viii.\u00a07. One more example. Paul writing, not to Jews, but to\nconverts from among the Gentiles, recognizes the usual arrangement of\nthe Decalogue, and its validity as a rule of duty under the Gospel,\nwhen he says, concerning filial obedience, that it is the first\ncommandment which has a promise annexed to it. Eph. vi.\u00a01, 2. In the\nfollowing verse he states what the promise is, presenting it as a\nmotive to obedience. This proves that no commandment had been changed\nor dispossessed of its place.\n\nIn asserting the importance of the Decalogue, the reader will observe\nthat we do not particularly insist upon the manner and circumstances\nof its promulgation. We dwell not upon the fact of its having been\nwritten with God's own finger upon stone, while Mosaic institutions\nwere engrossed by Moses himself upon parchment. We dwell not upon the\nthunderings, lightnings, thick clouds, the loud blast of the trumpet,\nand the voice of Jehovah from the midst of the fire; all which\nconspire to throw around the ten commandments a glory not belonging to\nthe ceremonial precepts. These things we pass, aware that men will\nevade the argument from them, by the supposition that they prove\nnothing more than that kind of superiority which the constitution of a\nstate has over statute law. We can hardly refrain, however, from\nobserving, as we pass, that as the ark was the throne of God, Exod.\nxxv.\u00a022, Num. vii.\u00a089, xvii.\u00a04, Ps. xcix.\u00a01--it is difficult to\nconceive how righteousness and judgment were the habitation of his\nthrone, Ps xcvii.\u00a02, if the \"ten words\" which were there deposited\nwere not designed to be an expression of His perfections, and the\neternal rule of right to His creatures.\n\nBut we think we have placed the morality of the Decalogue upon grounds\nthat cannot be successfully disputed. Having thus secured it, we\nadvert to the foregoing circumstances, not as direct proof of the\ntruth of our argument, but as so much collateral evidence. There is\none circumstance, however, which ought not to be passed over lightly.\nThe tables of stone were deposited in the ark, and covered over by the\nmercy seat. On the great day of atonement, when the High Priest\nentered into the Most Holy, he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice\nupon this mercy seat, and upon the floor before it, thus making an\natonement for the sins of the people. But did this blood in reality\natone for the sins of the people against that law which was concealed\nunder the mercy seat? No. Not only was it no atonement for moral\noffences, Heb. x.\u00a04, but it was not even an atonement for their\npolitical violation of this code. For such violation, in regard to\nmost of its precepts, was a capital crime, and could not be expiated\nunder that covenant. The whole process, therefore, was typical or\nprefigurative of the grand atonement made for the sins of the world by\nJesus Christ, the High-Priest of our profession. Heb. iii.\u00a01. The\nargument derived from it in favor of the Decalogue is, that what the\nlaw by its offerings could not do, God, sending his own son in the\nlikeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.\nRom. viii.\u00a03. For Christ enters into the Most Holy, even unto Heaven\nitself, with his own blood, and makes a real atonement for sins. In\nother words, the legal sacrifices could not reach to sins against the\nDecalogue, but Christ's sacrifice did, and therefore the superiority\nof the gospel over the law is fully established. But the whole\nargument for the superiority of the Christian sacrifice becomes null\nand void, on the supposition that the atonement had reference to any\nother law than the Decalogue.\n\nNow if the Decalogue, as a whole, has a claim to be called a summary\nof the moral law, the Sabbath derives in this way no small degree of\nauthority, For it is a very important part of the Ten Words, standing\nright in the very heart of them, and bound up along with them; so\nthat, whatever dignity and excellence the rest have, this has also. We\nare, therefore, driven to the conclusion, that when the Savior says,\n\"One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,\" the\nSabbath is alluded to as much as any other precept. That when the\nApostle teaches, the law is not made void through faith, Rom. iii.\u00a031,\nhe means, among other things, that the Sabbath is not made void by the\ngospel, but rather established. That when he says \"the law is\nspiritual,\" Rom. vii.\u00a014, he means that the Sabbath law, as well as\nall other precepts, is spiritual; and that none reject it but those\nwho are \"carnal, sold under sin.\"\n\nBut we shall hear it objected, that the fourth commandment is not\ntransferred to the New Testament, and re-enacted there, while all the\nother commandments are. This, however, is taking a wrong view of the\ncase, altogether. The truth is, that no moral precept is re-enacted in\nthe New Testament. What necessity is there for re-enacting laws which\nnever expired? The very notion of re-enacting implies their previous\nexpiration. Wherefore, if those precepts of the moral law which we\nfind in the New Testament are there for no other reason than because\nthey are re-enacted, it follows that they must have expired with the\nOld Covenant. If they expired with it, they were peculiar to it, and\nmust have had their origin in it. If they were peculiar to it, and\noriginated in it, then all obligation to obey them was merely covenant\nobligation, while moral or natural obligation is supposed to have had\nno existence. But this conclusion is an absurdity, and if carried out\nstill farther, leads to multiplied absurdities.\n\nWhatever laws are enacted in the New Testament, are altogether new and\npeculiar to that covenant of which Jesus is the mediator. They\nemanated from him in his character of Head of the Church. Baptism is\none of them. It is, however, a new institution, peculiar to the New\nCovenant, and was not brought over from the old. The Lord's Supper is\nanother, yet it is a new Covenant ordinance entirely, and therefore,\nlike baptism, is to be observed only by believers. But as for the\n_re-enacting_ of laws, it is a thing altogether unknown in the New\nCovenant, and inconsistent with its nature.\n\nThe notion of the necessity of re-enacting the Sabbath in the New\nTestament, arises altogether from supposing that it is a covenant\ninstitution or church ordinance. But if it is a church ordinance, it\ncan be binding upon none but believers; on the same principle that the\nordinances of the Mosaic church were binding upon none but Jews. Is\nany one prepared to take this ground? We think not. Those who\nacknowledge the necessity of any Sabbath whatever, consider the\nobservance of it a duty devolving upon men irrespective of their\nconnection with the church, binding them in the isolated and\nindividual capacity, even though church privileges were altogether out\nof the question. Were an individual abiding in some lone cavern of the\nRocky Mountains, or roaming the uninhabited and trackless wastes of\nthe earth, far, far from scenes of busy life, the law of God still\nbinds him \"to remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.\"\n\nThe truth is, the Sabbath is not properly an ordinance of either of\nthe covenants. It originated in neither of them, but was in existence\nlong before any covenant was revealed to man. Hence, after the Old\nCovenant was abrogated, it remained just what it was before. So that\nif, in the history of the New Covenant, or what is commonly called the\nNew Testament, there was not one word of allusion to the Sabbath in\nparticular, it would not affect the argument in the least.[6]\n\nBut is it true, that the Sabbath is not sanctioned by the New\nTestament? What means our Savior's course in regulating the manner of\nits observance, in vindicating it from Pharisaic austerities,\ndetermining what is lawful to be done, &c., Matt. xii.\u00a01-13. It can\nmean nothing else than sanctioning it, as a precept of the moral law,\nas we have already shown in our remarks upon this text, p. 10. But\neven if this express sanction were wholly wanting, inasmuch as it is a\npart of the moral law, as we have clearly proved, it stands firm,\nunaltered, and unalterable, receiving, from the very nature of the\ncase, all the sanction of the New Covenant. It is impossible for the\nNew Covenant to affect it in any other way than to strengthen and\nuphold it.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nRELATION OF THE SABBATH TO POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS\n\nIs there then no difference between the law of the Sabbath and the\nother precepts of the decalogue? We do not mean to say there is no\ndifference whatever. There is something in it which partakes of the\nnature of a _positive institution_, as theologians are pleased to term\nit. Positive institutions are generally considered to be such as are\nnot discoverable by the light of nature, their obligation resting upon\nthe mere will of the Lawgiver. While on the other hand, moral precepts\nare supposed to be ascertained by the light of nature, and to be\nbinding independently of any appointment of the Lawgiver.\n\nWe are free to admit the positive nature of the Sabbatic institution,\nso far as it respects the particular day to be observed, and the\nproportion of time; also as it respects the great reason on which the\nlaw is founded. For it is not a dictate of nature, that one seventh\npart of time is more holy, or has any more demand upon us in a\nreligious way, than one tenth, or one fifth, or any other proportion.\nNor is it a dictate of nature, that God created the world in six days,\nand rested on the seventh, blessing and sanctifying _it_. The light of\nnature, it is true, teaches that the world was created by eternal\nPower; but it gives no information of the time occupied in it, nor of\nthe fact of His resting on the seventh day, after it was finished.\nTherefore, so far as the mere light of nature is concerned, we are\nleft in the dark respecting what constitutes the very foundation of\nthe institution.\n\nBut after all, we very much doubt the propriety of classing all those\nprecepts which we cannot discover by the mere light of nature, under\nthe sweeping name of positive institutions, as if they were on the\nsame level with the passover, circumcision, the ordinance of the red\nheifer, &c. Indeed, we utterly protest against it, if the intention is\nto underrate their importance, or to depreciate them as\n\"_non-essential_,\" according to the cant term of the day. For what in\nsuch case would become of the whole system of Christianity itself? We\nmean the system of appointing a Mediator, and the redemption of the\nworld through him. It is a positive institution, that is, purely a\nmatter of revelation, and wholly undiscoverable by the light of\nnature. But shall we therefore call it a non-essential? Shall we\nregard it as something of minor importance in comparison with the\nreligion of nature? Does it not devolve upon us with obligations just\nas strong and overwhelming as the moral law? Most certainly it does;\nnot only because it is enjoined by the same authority, but also\nbecause it is the only means of promoting a conformity to the moral\nlaw. The same may be said of all positive institutions: they are\ndesigned to promote a conformity first to that dispensation to which\nthey are peculiar, and second, to the moral law.\n\nWhoever attempts a close investigation of the nature of positive\ninstitutions, will find that the line of separation between them and\nmoral duties, is not always so easy to be drawn as might at first be\nimagined. We say, indeed, that the former are not discoverable by the\nlight of nature. The reason of that, however, may be, not because they\ndo not in reality originate in the nature of things, but merely\nbecause, our powers of discovery are so feeble. Were these powers\nexpanded, and the range of our intellectual vision widened, we might\npossibly see that those very institutions we call positive, grow\nnaturally and necessarily out of the relation between God and us. Not\nonly might we see the reasons of positive institutions in general,\n(which indeed is already sufficiently obvious,) but with such enlarged\ncapacities, we might see the reason why such particular ones are\npitched upon rather than others. The real difference between moral and\npositive duties may, after all, be nothing more than this, that the\nformer we can readily discover for ourselves, narrow as the range of\nour vision is--while the latter, we are so short-sighted, we cannot\ndiscover, and are therefore wholly dependent on revelation for them.\nHence we suppose it is assuming more than can be proved, when it is\nargued that positive appointments are altogether arbitrary, and have\nno real foundation in the nature and fitness of things.[7]\n\nNow when we admit that the Sabbath is a positive institution, we mean\nthat it is not discoverable by the light of nature, but is purely a\nmatter of revelation; and this is all we mean. It still possesses the\nmain attributes of a moral precept. For as we have already shown, any\nduty which has its origin in the natural relation of creature to\nCreator, must be of a moral nature, whether we can discover it for\nourselves, or whether by reason of our short-sightedness, we are\naltogether dependent on revelation for it. That such is the origin of\nthe Sabbath law, is plain from the most casual inspection of it. It\ngrew out of God's creating the world in six days, and resting on the\nseventh, and is a constant memorial of it. Besides, it provides for\nthe performance of the worship of God, which is confessedly a moral\nduty; while the satisfaction it yields to the conscience of every man,\nis a sufficient indication of its parity with other moral precepts.[8]\n\nBut to dismiss all further argument concerning the distinction between\nmoral and positive duties, let it be admitted that the Sabbath is a\npositive institution in the very strictest sense; let it be admitted\nto be nothing more than an arbitrary appointment, having no foundation\nin the natural and primary relation of man to his Creator--it must\nnevertheless remain in force so long as that dispensation lasts to\nwhich it is peculiar. Hence it must still be in force; for the\ndispensation to which it belongs, is the dispensation of nature\nitself. While the dispensation of nature lasts, the day which God the\nCreator originally \"blessed and sanctified,\" will continue to be\nsacred. It is utterly impossible that it should be otherwise; and\ntherefore all speculations about its changeable nature, resulting from\nits being a positive appointment, are vain. Changeable and positive as\nwere the carnal ordinances of the old economy, they were not\nchangeable while that economy lasted, but were sacred throughout the\nwhole of it. Changeable and positive as are the ordinances of Baptism\nand the Lord's Supper, they are not changeable while the dispensation\nto which they belong continues, but are sacredly binding until the\ndispensation ends. So of the Sabbath; yes, even of the very day\noriginally appointed.\n\nCustomary as it is with writers to draw the broad line of distinction\nbetween what they call the _moral_ and _positive_ parts of the\ninstitution, and whatever advantage it may have in _theory_, so far as\n_practice_ is concerned, nothing is gained by it. Indeed, with those\nwho pretend to be guided by divine revelation, rather than by the\nunaided deductions of their own minds, it is always an unnecessary\ndistinction. He whose heart is subdued to the will of God, will not be\nstudious to inquire which of his commands are of a moral, and which of\na positive nature. His inquiry will be simply this: \"Lord, what wilt\nthou have me to do?\" If God command, he will obey, let the nature of\nthe command be what it will. Were man left to deduce the knowledge of\nhis duty from the nature and fitness of things, without the aid of any\nlight from above, God would not blame him if he should wholly neglect\nto practice those duties, which are commonly called positive. All that\nwould be required of him in such case, would be the practice of those\nduties which are most obviously of the moral kind. But with the\nstatute book of Almighty God in his hand, he stands on very different\nground. He is thus brought under obligation--yea, under _moral_\nobligation, to esteem ALL the divine precepts concerning _all things_,\nto be right. Psalm cxix.\u00a0128.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nTHE IMPORTANCE AND NECESSITY OF THE SABBATIC\nINSTITUTION.\n\nThere are very few bearing the Christian name--perhaps none except\nsuch as are a scandal to the profession--who do not feel the\nimportance of a weekly day of rest, which shall be dedicated to the\nservice of the Most High God. Whatever may be their scruples in regard\nto the application of the term _Sabbath_, to such a day, and though\nthey may suppose that it is not to be observed according to the\nrigorous exactness of the ancient law, they nevertheless feel that it\nwould be sapping the foundation of religion, morality, and good order,\nto abolish all distinction of days, leaving none for religious and\nmoral improvement. Nay, even those who, in theory, maintain that under\nthe gospel all days are alike, still feel--though it is difficult for\nthem to account for it--that their theory and their experience will\nnot harmonize together. Their very nature calls for a day of repose,\nwhile the wants of their souls are so clamorous as to drive them to\nsome moral and religious improvement of it. If they heed not these\nmonitions, they do but feel some aching void, some uneasy distress,\nwholly unlike those peaceful feelings which result from a due\nimprovement of the season. Whatever be a man's _theory_, he _feels_\nbetter when he sanctifies one day in seven to the Lord: his body feels\nbetter--his soul feels better. This feeling is not one which grows out\nof the airy visions of a distempered brain; but it is one which is\ncapable of being resolved into solid arguments.\n\nWithout a Sabbath, it would be utterly impossible to promote the\ninterests of religion. Were there no set time for suspending the\nbusiness of the world, the church of God would soon lose its\nvisibility, and hell obtain complete triumph over the fallen soul of\nman. Ministers might preach, embodying in their discourses the most\npowerful reasoning, and garnishing the whole with the sweetest flowers\nof rhetoric; but, to whom would they preach? A few, of exalted piety,\nwho rejoice in the sacred testimonies more than in all riches, and who\nfeel that \"a day in the courts of the Lord is better than a thousand,\"\nPsalm lxxxiv.\u00a010, would perhaps be there. But the mass--the\nthrong--the great multitude--would be elsewhere. They would be\nimmersed in the service of the world, their souls perishing for lack\nof knowledge. It would be impossible, utterly impossible to bring the\nword of God to bear upon their minds. How then could they be saved?\nFor faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Rom.\nx.\u00a017. And if men are not brought to believe the gospel, what becomes\nof the church? Its visibility is gone--the gates of hell have\nprevailed against it. But God has sworn that the church shall stand;\nnay, that all nations shall flow unto it, Isa. ii.\u00a02. Wherefore, He\nwho said \"the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,\" Matt. xvi.\n18, is also Lord of the Sabbath for the benefit of the church. As Lord\nof the Sabbath, he will forever perpetuate an institution so necessary\nto the interests of his kingdom.\n\nThis object--the promotion of Zion's welfare--could not be\naccomplished, unless the day were strictly a Sabbath; that is, a day\nof rest from all sorts of work. It is not sufficient that the day be\nmerely an honorable day--a notable season, or a day for holding\nreligious meetings. If men are not obliged to intermit their worldly\nbusiness, and that too by the express authority of God, they will give\nthemselves but little trouble to repair to a place of worship. Or even\nshould they go, their minds would be so filled with the world, that\nthe instructions from the desk would be as seed cast upon the way\nside. Even with regard to the Christian himself, how could the life of\nGod be maintained in his soul, by an attention to religious duties\njust barely for the short space allotted to the public assembly? It\nwould be impossible. His soul would be eaten up by the world. Public\nopportunities must be followed up by secret prayer, and close\nmeditation in the sacred word. For this, one entire day in seven is\nlittle enough. The experience of all devoted Christians--let their\ntheory about the Sabbath be what it may--has taught them, that nothing\nless will suffice to keep their souls in prosperity and health.\n\nIt appears, then, that we need just such a Sabbath as the fourth\ncommandment enjoins; one, the law of which is, \"in it thou shalt not\ndo any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant,\nnor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within\nthy gates.\" If the great object of evangelizing men, and bringing them\nto the knowledge and worship of Jehovah cannot be accomplished with\nany thing less than one entire day in seven, sanctified for the\npurpose, then unquestionably we need a Sabbath. It is therefore fair\nto presume, that the Sabbath of the Decalogue was given with special\nreference to man's necessities, and was not a mere _shadow_ to be\nannulled for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.\n\nThe Sabbath is necessary to promote the growth and strength of the\nmoral principle. A man may render obedience to all the other precepts\nof the moral law; we may suppose them to be written on his heart; we\nmay even suppose them to be so perfectly wrought into the temper and\ntexture of his soul, that there is no deviation whatever. By his\nobedience he gives evidence of being in possession of the great\nprinciple of holiness. But this principle lives not by its own\ninherent vitality; it must be nourished and fed continually, or it\nwithers and dies. However holy, however perfect the creature may be,\nhe possesses no self-replenishing, self-renovating principle,--he must\nconstantly resort to the great uncreated source for new supplies. The\ncontrary supposition makes him independent of his Maker. Now the\nSabbath is the season set apart and sanctified by God Almighty for\nthis very purpose. It is the means of grace for keeping alive the\ngreat moral principle--the season when the creature goes right up to\nthe Great Fountain, and drinks of its invigorating streams, whereby he\ncomes forth rejoicing as a strong man to run a race. Hence we find\nthat even when man was innocent; when he was in possession of the\nmoral principle to perfection, still he was not left without a Sabbath\nseason for the replenishing of his spiritual powers. If he needed a\nSabbath then, much more does he need it now. For though he has been\ncreated anew in Christ Jesus,--the principle of holiness being thus\nre-implanted--yet has he a harder task to live holy to the Lord,\ninasmuch as there is \"a law in his members warring against the law of\nhis mind,\" \"the flesh lusting against the spirit.\" Therefore he needs\nall the aid the Sabbath can bring to his soul. He needs \"the\nrestoring, the awakening day--the day of recovery and reformation--the\nday that brings him back to recollection, to seriousness, to\npenitence, to prayer.\" And when the last traces of sin shall have\nbecome obliterated, and man put in possession of all that perfection\nwhich pertains to the glorified state; still that perfection, we\nbelieve, will not be sustained by its own vitality, but will be\npreserved by means having a similarity to those employed on earth. For\nit is an everlasting Sabbath there, Heb. vi.\u00a09. Yes,\n\n  \"----there's a nobler rest above,\n  To which our lab'ring souls aspire,\n  With ardent pangs of strong desire.\"\n\nBut that the great importance of the Sabbatic Institution may be more\ndistinctly felt, let it be blotted out from existence. Not only let\nthe day which God himself \"sanctified and blessed,\" be disregarded;\nbut let there be no day whatever devoted as a season of rest and\nreligious improvement. Let every thing which has the least semblance\nof the Sabbatic rest be annihilated. What now is the state of morals?\nWhat kind of order prevails in society? Why, men are not ashamed when\nthey commit abomination, neither can they blush. They can glory in\ntheir shame, and hell seems to be let loose. What is true of\ncommunities, is also true of individuals. Such as have disregarded all\nseasons and opportunities for instruction in those principles which\nserve as restraints upon the heart, have proceeded from bad to worse;\nhave become perfect pests of society, the ringleaders of all\nwickedness, at the head of every miscreant gang, foaming out their own\nshame, and ending their career in a prison or on the gallows. Witness\nthe poor criminal, as he stands on the dividing line between time and\neternity, and his long-slumbering conscience wakes up, and begins to\nspeak out its thunders. What does he say in that dread moment, when he\nfeels that the eye of God is directly upon him? What!--Why, that in\nthe beginning of his career, all the powers of his nature called him\nto a day of rest, and warned him not to trample upon seasons devoted\nto moral and religious improvement;--that he disregarded these\nmonitions, until at length the voice of conscience was hushed in\nsilence, and the work of death was easy. Therefore, says he, I am a\nruined man. Reader, when you contemplate such facts, can you say that\na Sabbath is not necessary? Do you not see that the obliteration of it\nis the brand upon the forehead of morality?\n\nNeed we, in this little essay, pause to consider the bearing of the\nSabbath upon the temporal welfare of man? It is a matter so obvious,\nthat we are almost ashamed to make it the subject of a separate\nparagraph. It is a fact well attested by experience, that the human\nframe sinks under uninterrupted toil. The utmost productive labor of\nman is in the proportion of six days exertion to one of repose. So\nthat the Sabbath, instead of being an interruption to our necessary\nbusiness, is really a help to it. The utmost prolongation of human\nlife also, is in the like alternation of toil and rest. While the poor\nbeast of burden, if doomed to continued service, drags out a miserable\nexistence, and at length sinks under the premature exhaustion of his\npowers. What lustre, then, does the Sabbath cast upon the benevolence\nof its Author. What mercy, what God-breathed humanity appear in this\nholy Institution. Let those who dwell in the habitations of cruelty,\nbe its enemies.\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\nMANNER OF OBSERVING THE SABBATH.\n\nNotwithstanding God has given the Sabbath for the spiritual and\ntemporal benefit of man, it is manifest that we may suffer a woful\nloss of all the good it proposes, if we neglect to make a proper\nimprovement of it. Like all the other means of grace, it may prove a\nsavor of death unto death to those who abuse it. It therefore becomes\na momentous inquiry, How shall this holy day be observed?\n\nThis great institution is to be regarded as a weekly testimony of our\nallegiance to Him who created us. It thus becomes the mark of\ndistinction between the worshipers of Jehovah and heathens. This being\nthe case, it becomes a matter of thrilling importance that the\ntestimony of our allegiance be sincere, characterized by nothing of\nhypocrisy or formality. If, in all our acts of worship, we must be\ncareful to worship \"in spirit and in truth,\" surely it is of the\nhighest importance to do so on this solemn occasion, when the Great\nKing comes down to test our loyalty. Let it be remembered, too, that\nin this business there can properly be no uninterested spectators. It\nis not for a few to go through with the solemn act of dedicating\nthemselves, while the rest make it a mere holiday, in which they look\non, as boys witness the manouverings of soldiers on parade day. But\n_all_ the sons and daughters of Adam--for all are alike the\nworkmanship of the Divine Being--are equally bound to direct their\neyes and their hearts to Him who made them, and to say, \"Come, let us\njoin ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be\nforgotten.\"\n\nOn this day we should by no means omit to celebrate the praise of\ncreation. To be a memorial of this great work of the Almighty, the\nSabbath was originally instituted. Shall we then lose sight of the\noriginal design of the institution, or even throw it into the shade as\na matter of secondary importance? Is not the soundness of that system\nof theology to be suspected, which would teach us to do so? Some, it\nis true, teach us that the work of Redemption being much more\nstupendous than that of creation, is therefore to be made the chief\nobject of our praise. But however plausible this sentiment may seem,\nit is a sufficient answer to say it is not contained in the\nScriptures. How much more vast the work of Redemption is than that of\ncreation, we pretend not to say, as we are not able to measure the\nextent of either. To say which work makes the most powerful impression\nupon our minds, and fills us with more sublime ideas, is more easy.\nBut that is no criterion by which to judge of their relative\nmagnitude. Let it even be conceded that Redemption exceeds in glory\nthe work of creation, still, whence do we _derive_ those powers by\nwhich we estimate its glory? Whence did we obtain those faculties by\nwhich we contemplate the great scheme of Redemption, and know that it\nis glorious? Is it not to the wisdom and goodness of God as displayed\nin creation, that we are indebted for all these? And what are the\n_objects_ upon which Redemption is accomplished? Are they not\n_created_ objects? And what is the _effect_ which redemption has upon\nthem? Is it not that of putting an end to the disorders which sin has\nintroduced, and bringing them to their original glory? Is not the\nfinal result of redemption to be that of bringing man back to that\nstate of holiness and rectitude which the work of creation originally\nbestowed upon him? How then can the praise of Redemption be\ncelebrated, without celebrating the praise of creation also? The one\ncertainly leads directly to the other. So that if Redemption\naccomplish its proper fruits upon us, it will lead us to be still more\ndevout in observing the proper memorial of the Creator's works.\n\nBut let it not be thought, because the work of creation holds so\nprominent a place in our Sabbath meditations, that redemption is\ntherefore cast into the shade. It is rather the contrary. For as those\npowers by which we contemplate the work of creation, and become\nacquainted with its grandeur and with its author, are impaired by sin,\nso it is impossible for us to enter into the subject profitably,\nexcept by the aid which Redemption affords. If we attempt to bring our\nmental powers to act upon the works of creation, and to \"look through\nnature up to Nature's God,\" we shall find them slow and lifeless to\nperform their duty, until first purified and invigorated by the\ninfluence of the great Atonement. Much, therefore, as it is our duty\nto celebrate the praise of creation, we cannot do so to the glory of\nGod, without recognizing at the same time the redemption that is in\nChrist Jesus, as the means by which we do it. From which it appears,\nthat the praises of creation and of redemption go hand in hand in this\nmatter. There is no clashing,--no contrariety,--nor even such an\nelevation of one above the other in respect to glory, that they cannot\nbe celebrated together, and upon the very day which most fitly serves\nas the memorial of the former; which memorial cannot be transferred to\nanother day without manifest incongruity.\n\nIt is manifest from the slightest consideration of the nature and\ndesign of the Sabbatic institution, that Redemption cannot be excluded\nfrom our meditations on this holy day, but must hold a very prominent\nplace. For one great design of the Sabbath is, to promote our\nconformity to holiness. But man partakes of no holiness except through\nthe gospel. The mediation of Christ is the only channel through which\nit is communicated to him, and this always in connection with the most\nvigorous action of his mind on the subject.\n\nAnother very important thing among the duties of the Sabbath, is the\ncultivation of a right spirit with reference to it. We should \"_count\nit a delight_,\" Isa. lviii.\u00a013. Can that man be called a Christian,\nwho counts it an irksome season? Is he spiritually minded to whom it\nis an unwelcome interruption of his worldly business, who in the\navariciousness of his heart says \"when will the Sabbath be gone that\nwe may set forth wheat?\" Amos. viii.\u00a05. Surely not. His temper is any\nthing but in accordance with the sacredness of the Sabbath season. His\nthoughts, his feelings are a direct violation of that law which says,\n\"Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.\" To a real Christian,\nhowever, the Sabbath is the most delightful season he enjoys on earth.\nIt is something like a heaven below; for the things of God and Christ\ncome then into direct contact with his holy soul. He is as eager for\nthe approach of this holy season, as a child is for his holiday.\nInstead of it being too long for him, it is too short; and with joy\ndoes he look forward to a Sabbath which shall never end, that which\nremaineth for the people of God, Heb. iv.\u00a09. Such a spirit ought ever\nto be cultivated. In no other way can the Sabbath become a means of\ngrace to the soul. What will mere abstinence from labor do? It will\nonly contribute to the renovation of the corporeal system; which, it\nis true, is one design of the institution. But this is a small part.\nShall we take care of the body, and not of the soul! Yet the soul\nsuffers unto death, if there be no care to cherish a right spirit with\nreference to the day which is \"the holy of the Lord.\" Our very\nthoughts must be put under restraint, and the greatest care taken that\nnothing of a worldly nature intrude into the mind.\n\nThis leads us to observe, that our conversation should have no\nreference to worldly things, but should be upon such subjects as are\nspiritual and tend to the furtherance of the soul in the divine life.\n\"Not speaking thine own words,\" Isa. lviii.\u00a013. But, alas! we shall\nenter the dwellings of some, and when the Sabbath approaches, we shall\nnot know it by any difference that we can discover in their\nconversation. It is still upon subjects that have not the remotest\nconnection with the glory of God. Follow them to the place of public\nworship, and up to the very threshhold of the door, their speech still\nsavors of this world. Follow them through the whole of the day--the\nstate of their crops, the currency of the country, the political\naspect of things, banks, bonds, mortgages; these are the themes upon\nwhich they expatiate. These render them animated, and even eloquent.\n\"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.\" Reader,\nthinkest thou that such persons can say in truth, \"O how I love thy\nlaw.\" That law says, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.\nThinkest thou that the love of God reigns in their hearts? This is the\nlove of God, that we keep his commandments. John. v.\u00a03.\n\nAll visiting for pleasure is inconsistent with a right observance of\nthe Sabbath. Express and plain is the word of God--\"Not finding thine\nown pleasure.\" Isa. lxviii.\u00a013. Visiting the sick for the purpose of\nalleviating their sufferings, and rendering what help we can, either\nas it regards their bodies or their souls, is not only allowable, but\nis a Sabbath duty. But even this is liable to abuse. Multitudes take\nthe Sabbath to visit the sick, merely because they are not willing to\ntake time on any other day; and it is to be feared that if there were\nno Sabbath, the sick would be sadly neglected by them. Others go\nmerely because the rigid improvement of the day at home is irksome to\nthem. They watch the occasion, and convert it as much as possible into\na visit for their own pleasure, while they quiet their consciences by\nthe reflection that they have been visiting the sick. Reader! be\ncareful how you seek to evade the restraints of Heaven's law. Every\nattempt on your part to convert the season of holy rest into a day of\npleasure, evinces a heart that counts the commandments of God\ngrievous. Is this a _renewed_ heart? Impossible. Remember, too, that\nwhile you visit others for your own pleasure, you drive them to a\nviolation of the Sabbath, as well as yourself. You take them from\ntheir closet, their reading, their meditations.\n\nAll traveling, for business or for pleasure, is also forbidden by the\nSabbath law. Such traveling as may be necessary in order to promote\nthe due sanctification of the day, is of course not included.\nHarnessing our horses and riding to our accustomed places of worship,\nmay be necessary to promote the sanctification of the Sabbath, and is,\ntherefore, no breach of it. It stands on the same level with the\nlabor performed by the priests of the Old Economy in the temple, for\nwhich they were \"blameless.\" Matt. xii.\u00a05. Yet traveling one half the\ndistance for pleasure, is a profanation of the day, inasmuch as the\nword of God says, \"not finding thine own pleasure.\" For the same\nreason, and because there are six days in which men ought to work,\njourneying for business on the Sabbath, is a violation of it. Take the\nfollowing case: Brother A. is out on a journey. The Sabbath comes, and\ninstead of putting up and resting until the sacred season is past, he\nkeeps right forward just as he had done every other day of the week.\nTrue, he professes to regret the necessity of traveling on this day,\nbut pleads in excuse that he cannot afford to stop at a public house\nduring the time. He is too poor; or, he says, the tavern is a noisy,\nbustling place, and unfavorable to his religious enjoyment, and,\ntherefore, he concludes it will be no greater violation of the Sabbath\nto proceed quietly on his journey than it would be to spend it in such\na situation. But, brother, let me talk with you about this. How much\nwould it cost you to stop at the public house? A dollar, or two\ndollars; or it may be, if your family is with you, five dollars. Well,\nwill you barter away the sanctity of the Sabbath for five dollars!\nPoor as you are, will you make sale of the ordinance of God for money?\nFor this is what you do in reality. Turn it and turn it whichever way\nyou will, it comes at last to this. Pause, then, and consider whether,\nunder such circumstances, and actuated by such principles, you can\nclass yourself with those who \"esteem the law of God better to them\nthan thousands of gold and silver.\" Ps. cxix.\u00a072. The true Christian\nwould rather impoverish himself to the last farthing than violate one\nof God's precepts. \"But the tavern was noisy and bustling.\" How came\nyou to put up at such a tavern? Those who _remember_ the Sabbath, and\nare anxious to spend it to the glory of God, will carefully look out\nand make their inquiries beforehand, and in most cases will not have\nmuch difficulty in lodging themselves at a quiet place. But if through\ncircumstances beyond their own control, they are lodged in a place of\ndifferent character, their duty is to submit to it, and do the best\nthey can. Your enjoyment may not be so great; but what of that? Your\nspiritual prosperity does not always depend on your enjoyment; nor\ndoes God's glory depend upon it. God's glory depends upon your\nobedience to his law, and so does your prosperity. It is a mistaken\nnotion that Christians are never in the way of duty but when they are\nin the way of enjoyment. Besides, dare you prescribe terms to the\nAlmighty, and say you will obey him, provided he will grant you such\nenjoyments and privileges as you want, otherwise you will not? How\ndaring the impiety! What if God lodged you at such a wicked place on\npurpose that you might, by your conduct and your words, be a reproof\nto the ungodly sinners that frequented there. Will you be ashamed of\nyour duty, and shrink from the trial? \"He that is ashamed of me and of\nmy words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed.\" Luke ix.\u00a026.\nRemember, my brother, God's law says, \"Remember the Sabbath to keep it\nholy.\" The exceptions which you make, God has not made.\n\nAfter what has been offered, it seems almost needless to add, that\nSabbath-keeping includes abstinence from labor. The Divine law enjoins\nus \"to keep it holy.\" The plain meaning of which is, that it is a day\npeculiarly sacred to the Lord. For the word _holy_, when applied to\nthings inanimate, or to portions of time, denotes them to be set apart\nexclusively for religious purposes. If, then, the day in question,\naccording to the divine mandate, is to be kept holy, it is manifestly\na sin to devote it, or any part of it, to secular pursuits. Wherefore\nthe law is express--\"in it thou shalt not do any work.\" All that work\nwhich on other days is perfectly lawful, is on the holy Sabbath to be\nlaid aside, except such as may be absolutely necessary for the\nprevention of distress, or the relief of objects of mercy. But alas!\nwhat kind of commentary upon this law is the conduct of many who call\nthemselves by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us see.--Neighbor\nB. has a large grass farm, and milks daily from thirty to fifty cows.\nThe product of his dairy is cheese, of which he makes one or perhaps\ntwo each day during the proper season. The Sabbath comes, and the cows\nmust be milked. Well, that is right and necessary for the prevention\nof distress. But then the milk must be subjected to the same operation\nas on other days, and the accustomed cheese must be made, because\notherwise it would be lost. Lost!--well, suppose it should be, how\nmuch is it worth? Why, five dollars, more or less. And so he barters\naway the sanctity of the Sabbath for _five dollars_! Well, Judas sold\nhis master for thirty pieces of silver, and how much better is your\nconduct than his? Or what better is your conduct than mine would be in\nthe following case? I have a valuable horse, which I will sell for one\nhundred dollars. A traveler passes my door on Sabbath day, and offers\nme my price. Now the times are hard, and by closing the bargain it\nwill be a profit to me of twenty or twenty-five dollars. By refusing\nto do so, I lose the chance of selling him, and he remains on my\nhands. Rather than lose so good an opportunity, I strike the bargain,\nSabbath though it be. Thus have I sold the sanctity of the Sabbath for\ntwenty dollars! Neighbor B., who makes his cheese on the Sabbath, is\nhorror-struck, and comes over to admonish me. But, \"_Physician heal\nthyself_.\"\n\nWe might multiply cases to illustrate our argument, but it is\nneedless. Every instance of departure from God's law, we believe, will\nbe found to have originated in selfishness. But that manner of keeping\nthe day which looks at our own interest, rather than the honor of God,\ncan in no way be called \"keeping it holy.\" For if it is holy, it is\nconsecrated to the Lord, not to ourselves. But in all the foregoing\ninstances, it is manifest, the individual looks first to himself. Such\nselfishness is idolatry, and is the very spirit that governs the\ncarnal mind. But God, in the just retributions of his providence,\nsometimes defeats the very end proposed to be obtained by it. For\ninstance, the cheese, which is the product of Sabbath labor, spoils on\nthe dairyman's hands; or if that does not take place, he fails of\ngetting his pay for it. The farmer who was in haste to gather in his\nhay or his grain on the Sabbath for fear of a shower, has no sooner\nsecured it than the storm begins, and a single flash of lightning\nconsumes the whole. Or, it may be, when winter comes, he takes it to\nmarket, trusts it out, and finally gets nothing for it. The man who\ncould not afford the expense of stopping at the hotel over Sabbath\nwhile on his journey, gets home, and finds perhaps that on the very\nday he was profaning God's holy institution, some person's cattle\nbroke into his grain-field and destroyed enough to pay for his lodging\nat the hotel half a dozen times. What then did he gain by it? That\nsuch retributions overtake those who violate the law of God, is not\nmerely imaginary. On the contrary, it is believed, that were men more\nclose observers of the dealings of Providence, they would be sensible\nthat such things take place often. But, alas! \"God speaketh once, yea,\ntwice, and man perceiveth it not.\"\n\nIt seems almost superfluous to say any thing about public worship, as\nan important part of Sabbath exercises. If it were necessary to their\nspiritual prosperity that Jews should meet together in \"holy\nconvocation,\" Lev. xxii.\u00a03, and be instructed in the testimonies\nconcerning a Messiah to come, it cannot be less important that\nChristians should now assemble and celebrate the fulfilment of those\ntestimonies, and \"the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.\" Our\nLord has ordained public worship to be a means of promoting the growth\nof his people in holiness; and if the Sabbath is a means to the same\nend, they ought both to go together, unless our situation render it\nimpossible. If on the holy Sabbath we cannot say, \"How amiable are thy\ntabernacles, O Lord of hosts,\" when can we? If on this holy day we\ncannot say, \"I had rather be a door-keeper in the house of my God,\nthan to dwell in the tents of wickedness,\" when will it ever be the\nlanguage of our hearts?\n\nBut we cannot enlarge. Our essay has already exceeded the limits we\nhad designed. We submit the subject to your consideration, as being\none of incalculable importance. Reader, what course will you take? God\nAlmighty has separated one day in particular from all others, and\npronounced it holy. Will you then say that all days are alike? Or will\nyou assume to yourself the prerogative of setting apart whatever\nportion of time you choose, in open disregard of that particular\nportion which God \"sanctified and blessed,\" saying, \"it is the Sabbath\nof the Lord thy God?\" Will you suffer your convenience or your\nselfishness to come into conflict with the claims of your Maker? Who\nis it that said, \"If any man will come after me, let him DENY\nhimself?\" Pause then, before you suffer yourself to be lulled into\nindifference on this matter. A vain sophistry insinuates that it is a\nsubject of minor importance--a _non-essential_. But be not deceived.\nGod has magnified its importance throughout his holy oracles. It is\nGod the Lord that speaks, will you obey or will you turn again to\nfolly?\n\n[1] Wilson.\n\n[2] Burnside.\n\n[3] \"The Decalogue, as to the form of it, and as delivered through the\nhand and ministry of Moses, only concerned that people (Israel), and\nwas calculated for their use; though, as to the matter of it, and so\nfar as it is of a moral nature, and agrees with the law and light of\nnature, it is equally binding on the Gentiles.\"--_Dr. Gill._\n\n[4] Bap. Advocate of Jan. 16, 1841.\n\n[5] Christ inculcates only the precepts of the second table of the\nlaw, not because they are of more importance than those of the first,\nbut because they are less easily counterfeited. Such duties are by far\ntoo weighty to be permanently sustained by the hollow-heartedness of\nthe hypocrite.\n\n[6] Most writers on this subject, though they admit the morality of\nthe Sabbath, and the claims it has upon all men indiscriminately,\nappear to reason in a manner entirely different, when they come to\ncontend for a change from the seventh to the first day of the week.\nTheir arguments which before were predicated upon the nature and\nfitness of things, and the requirements of God, as the natural\nLawgiver of mankind, are suddenly changed and based upon the new\ndispensation of Jesus Christ. Now this is an inconsistency; but it is\none to which they are necessarily driven, in order to give\nplausibility to the claims of their new Sabbath. The fact that Christ\nintroduced a new dispensation, does not argue a change of the Sabbath,\nor an institution of a new one, unless it can be proved that the old\nSabbath was a church ordinance. If it was, then, as there is a new\nchurch state, of course we must look for new church ordinances.\n\nHow, then, will it be proved, that the old Sabbath was a church\nordinance? Will it be said that the observance of it was indispensable\nto membership in the Jewish church? Very true. But the same may be\nsaid of the laws concerning murder, and theft, and adultery. Yet these\nwere not, properly speaking, church ordinances. Concerning these\nthings men were bound, though no church had ever existed. The sin of\nmurder lay at Cain's door, long before any church was formed. The\nearth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence,\nbefore the Jews were organized into a church; and the sin of\ndishonoring his father blackened the character of Ham, long before the\nfifth commandment was published from Sinai. So, too, the Sabbath was\nset apart by God sanctifying it and blessing it, more than two\nthousand years before it entered into the statute law of Israel. It\ncannot, therefore, be a church ordinance.\n\nWill it be said, that the Sabbath, though not altogether a church\nordinance, is nevertheless so in part? If this can be established,\nthen certainly so much of it as partook of this character must\nnecessarily have been abolished by the death of Christ, and that part\nonly remains which had no such character. But I ask, what part of the\nSabbath law can claim to be a church ordinance, peculiar to the old\ndispensation. It will be said that the particular day of the week set\napart for observance, was such. This, as all the world confesses, was\nthe seventh in distinction from every other. But the same rule which\ndetermines every other part of the Sabbath law to be something else\nthan a church ordinance, determines the same thing with regard to the\nseventh day of the week. If the Sabbath was not a church ordinance,\nbut obligatory upon all men indiscriminately, long before any church\nexisted, the same is true of the seventh day of the week. One part of\nthe law was not brought into existence without the other, nor one part\nbefore the other. We conclude, therefore, that the particular day\nwhich was consecrated, partook no more of the nature of a church\nordinance, than all the rest of the law did.\n\n[7] \"The reason of positive institutions in general, is very obvious;\nthough we should not see the reason why such particular ones are\npitched upon, gather than others. Whoever, therefore, instead of\ncaviling at words, will attend to the thing itself, may clearly see,\nthat positive institutions in general, as distinguished from this or\nthat particular one, have the nature of moral commands, since the\nreasons of them appear. Thus, for instance, the _external_ worship of\nGod is a moral duty, though no particular mode of it be so. Care then\nis to be taken, when a comparison is made between moral and positive\nduties, that they be compared no farther than as they are\ndifferent--no farther than as the former are positive, or arise out of\nmere external command, the reasons of which we are not acquainted\nwith; and as the latter are moral, or arise out of the apparent reason\nof the case, without such external command. Unless this caution be\nobserved, we shall run into endless confusion.\"--_Butler's Analogy of\nReligion to Nature. Part II. Chap. 1._\n\nIt is very commonly said, that positive institutions are changeable,\nand therefore are unlike moral precepts, which are unchangeable and\neternal in their nature. But we deny that positive precepts are\nchangeable, so long as the relation subsists in which they originate.\nSuch positive institutions as originated in the peculiar relation\nwhich God sustained towards the Jews, by reason of the Sinaitic\ncovenant, remained unchanged and unchangeable so long as that relation\nsubsisted. Such as originate in the relation He sustains towards man\nas his Redeemer through Jesus Christ, also remain unchangeable so long\nas such relation remains. On the same principle, such as originate in\nthe natural relation He bears to man as his Creator, remain just as\nlong as this relation exists; which is forever.\n\n[8] President Dwight observes, [Sermon 185,] \"The distinction between\n_moral_ and _positive commands_, has been less clearly made by moral\nwriters than most other distinctions.\" He says the law of the Sabbath\nis entirely of a moral nature, as to the whole end to which it aims,\nso far as man is concerned; that \"it makes no difference here, whether\nwe could have known it without information from God, that one day in\nseven would be the best time and furnish the best performance of these\n[religious] things, or no. It is sufficient that we know them.\"\n\n\"The decalogue exhibits _a perfect standard of morality_; and a\nstandard of morality not providing for the public acknowledgement and\nstated worship of God as the Creator, would be _essentially\ndefective_.\"--_Parkinson's Letters to Elder W. B. Maxson._\n\n\nTHE SIXTH-DAY NIGHT.\n\n  \"Sweet to the soul the parting ray,\n    Which ushers placid evening in,\n  When with the still expiring day,\n    The Sabbath's peaceful hours begin;\n  How grateful to the anxious breast,\n  The sacred hours of holy rest!\n\n  I love the blush of vernal bloom,\n    When morning gilds night's sullen tear:\n  And dear to me the mournful gloom\n    Of Autumn--Sabbath of the year;\n  But purer pleasures, joys sublime,\n  Await the dawn of holy time.\n\n  Hushed is the tumult of the day,\n    And worldly cares, and business cease.\n  While soft the vesper breezes play\n    To hymn the glad return of peace;\n  O season blest! O moments given,\n  To turn the vagrant thoughts to Heaven.\n\n  What though involved in lurid sight,\n    The loveliest forms in nature fade,\n  Yet mid the gloom shall heavenly light\n    With joy the contrite heart pervade;\n  O thou, great source of light divine,\n  With beams etherial gladden mine.\n\n  Oft as this hallowed hour shall come,\n    O raise my thoughts from earthly things,\n  And bear them to my heavenly home,\n    On living faith's immortal wings--\n  Till the last gleam of life decay\n  In one eternal Sabbath Day!\"\n\n\n\n\nNo. 3.\n\nTHE SABBATH:\n\nAUTHORITY FOR THE CHANGE OF THE DAY.\n\n\nIt being clear from the Scriptures, that the seventh day was\ninstituted by divine authority for a weekly Sabbath, and religiously\nregarded throughout the times of the Old Testament, those who now\nrelinquish its observance, and keep the first day of the week, take\nthe ground that the Sabbath was either abrogated and a new institution\nintroduced in its room, or that the time of its observance was changed\nfrom the seventh to the first day of the week, in commemoration of the\nresurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. To be consistent with\nthemselves, therefore, they are bound to evince one or the other of\nthese positions. The burden of proof evidently lies on their part. For\nunless it can be shown, that the fourth commandment, which requires\nthe sanctification of the seventh day, has been abolished, or amended\nby the substitution of the first for the seventh day of the week, it\nis clear that the original appointment remains obligatory and is now\nbinding on the entire human family. And to substantiate either of\nthese points, the proof must be clear and decisive. It will not do to\nrest upon doubtful deductions. We have an unquestionable right to\ndemand that divine warrant, in either case, which pertained to the\ninstitution as originally delivered.\n\nWe will therefore first examine the proofs adduced in favor of the\nabrogation of the former weekly Sabbath and the introduction of a new\ninstitution.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo sustain this position, the broad ground is taken by some, that the\nDecalogue itself, in which the law of the Sabbath is contained, was\nabrogated; and that, under the new dispensation, no part of it is\nbinding but what is newly enjoined or expressly recognized, either by\nChrist or his Apostles.\n\nThe perpetual obligation of the Decalogue implies, of course, the\nperpetual obligation of the Sabbath as enjoined in the fourth\ncommandment. But if _that_ was abrogated, the Sabbath which it\nenjoined was also abrogated; and, consequently, it ceases to be\nbinding, unless renewed under the new economy. What, then, is the\nproof here relied upon? One of the principal passages in which this\nproof is supposed to be contained is 2\u00a0Corinthians 3:7, 8, 13. \"But if\nthe ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was\nglorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold\nthe face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to\nbe done away, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather\nglorious?... And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that\nthe children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that\nwhich is abolished.\" It is argued from this passage, that the clauses\n\"which glory was to be done away,\" and \"to the end of that which is\nabolished,\" refer to the whole law, _moral_ as well as _ritual_,\nbecause mention is made of \"that which was written and engraven in\nstones,\" which is an evident allusion to the Decalogue. But, on\ncareful examination, it will be found that \"that which was to be done\naway,\" was not the _Decalogue itself_, but \"the _ministration_ of it,\"\nwhich was then appointed--the same being emblematically illustrated by\nthe glory of Moses' countenance, which was merely temporary. This\nclause refers expressly to the glory of his countenance, and not to\nthe glory of the law itself. So also the clause \"that which is\nabolished,\" does not refer to the Decalogue, but to the ministration\nof Moses, including the appended rites and usages, the priesthood and\nits sacrifices, which were useful merely for the time being. It cannot\nbe supposed that the Decalogue was abolished, without expressly\ncontradicting Christ's testimony, Matt. 5:17-19, as well as many other\nrepresentations of the Scriptures. The abolishment spoken of,\ntherefore, evidently respected no other than what the Apostle calls in\nanother place \"the law of commandments contained in ordinances,\"\ninclusive of the entire ministration of Moses. There is unquestionably\na reference in this chapter to the Decalogue, but not as abolished. It\nwas merely the ministration of it, or the then instituted manner of\nteaching, illustrating, and enforcing it, which was abolished, to be\nsucceeded by a new ministration of the same law by the Spirit. For it\nis written, \"I will put my law\"--(the very law of the ten\ncommandments)--\"in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.\"\nAgain, \"We are not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.\"\nWhat law but the Decalogue is here referred to? Evidently none. For\nsurely we are not under the Mosaic ritual. Again, \"Do we make void the\nlaw through faith?... Yea, we establish the law.\" The same, no doubt,\nwhich was contained in the Decalogue. Hence, the Apostle James says,\n\"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt\nlove thy neighbor as thyself, ye shall do well.\" Here the title \"the\nroyal law\" is given by way of eminence to the Decalogue; and its\npermanent obligation is manifestly recognized; for the precept alluded\nto is a summary of the last six commandments of this code, and the\nallusion is so made as to imply the continued obligation of the first\nfour, which are summed up in supreme love to God. Again, the Apostle\nJohn testifies, \"Hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his\ncommandments.\" And again, \"Blessed are they that do his commandments,\nthat they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through\nthe gates into the city.\" In both these passages reference is\nevidently had to the precepts of the Decalogue, as the essential and\npermanent rule of obedience for Christians. The doing away or\nabolishment, therefore, spoken of in the above passage, cannot refer\nto the Decalogue or the moral law _itself_, but to the Mosaic\ndispensation or ritual.\n\nAnother of the proofs alledged for the abrogation of the Decalogue,\nand consequently of the Sabbath, is Colossians 2:14-17. \"Blotting out\nthe hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary\nto us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and,\nhaving spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them\nopenly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in\nmeat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon,\nor of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the\nbody is of Christ.\"\n\nBy \"the hand-writing of ordinances,\" is most evidently meant the\nceremonial law--not the Decalogue, or the moral law. This is never\ncharacterized as \"the hand-writing of ordinances.\" Therefore, the\n\"blotting out,\" \"taking away,\" and \"nailing to the cross,\" spoken of,\nhave no reference to this law, but to the Mosaic ritual. This is\nparticularly distinguished from the Decalogue, and fitly described as\n\"the law of commandments contained in ordinances.\" It was this, and\nthis only, which was \"blotted out\" and \"nailed to the cross.\" As,\ntherefore, the reference made by the Apostle is expressly to this law,\nit follows, by a fair inference, that \"the sabbath days\" alluded to,\nor, strictly rendered, \"sabbaths,\" are those which were contained in\nthis law, or among these \"ordinances,\" and do not include the Sabbath\nof the fourth commandment. There were, besides the weekly Sabbath,\nvarious other sabbaths appointed, which belonged to that ritual, and\nnot to the Decalogue. Accordingly, these were expressly included in\n\"the hand-writing of ordinances,\" and like the rest were \"a shadow of\nthings to come,\" and ceased to be obligatory at the death of Christ.\nThere is evidently no authority in this passage for including any\nsabbaths but what properly belonged to the Mosaic ritual. This view of\nthe matter is corroborated by a more literal rendering of the 17th\nverse, viz: \"Let no one therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or\nin a part or division of a festival, or of a new moon, or of\nsabbaths.\" The sabbaths alluded to are obviously those which are found\nin the same place with meats and drinks, festivals and new moons, and\nwhich were of the same general character. The weekly Sabbath,\ntherefore, is not affected at all by their abrogation, but remains in\nfull force, as does every other precept of the Decalogue.\n\nWe find the same distinction as to the law which was abolished, in\nEphesians 2:14, 15. \"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and\nhath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having\nabolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments\ncontained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man,\nso making peace.\" Here the middle wall of partition between Jews and\nGentiles, called \"the enmity,\" is expressly defined, as before, to be\n\"the law of commandments contained in ordinances.\" This, and this\nonly, therefore, was abolished, leaving the Decalogue, or the moral\nlaw, in its original character and obligation. This is the language of\nthe whole Bible. There is no proof in any of these passages, that the\nlaw of the ten commandments was abolished, or that the Sabbath\nenjoined therein was done away.\n\nNor is there such proof in Romans 14:5, 6. \"One man esteemeth one day\nabove another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be\nfully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth\nit to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth\nnot regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God\nthanks: and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth\nGod thanks.\" This passage is frequently adduced as proof that the\nobligation to keep the ancient Sabbath has ceased, and that under the\nGospel dispensation there is no divinely authorized distinction in the\ndays of the week; that there is no one constituted _holy_ in\ndistinction from the _rest_; and consequently that every one is left\nat his own liberty to keep a Sabbath or not. It will be easily\nperceived, that if this argument has any weight in reference to the\n_seventh_ day as the Sabbath, it operates equally against the\nobligation to keep the _first_ day, either as a substitute for the\nseventh, or as a memorial of the resurrection, seeing it places all\ndistinctions whatever as to days on the same ground with the\nconfessedly obsolete rites of the Mosaic ritual. According to this\nview of the passage, we have under the Gospel dispensation _no Sabbath\nat all_--not so much as an _authorized_ memorial of the resurrection.\nHe who claims the least authority for the observance of the _first_\nday of the week for _any_ purpose, takes a course which completely\noverthrows the argument based upon this passage. But, in reality, this\ntext has nothing more to do with the subject before us, than either of\nthose which have been examined. It respects merely the distinctions\nwhich formerly existed in regard to the six working days of the\nweek--some of them being appointed in the Mosaic ritual as sabbaths,\nothers as days of atonement and purification, and others as festivals.\nSome of the early Christians thought these distinctions still binding,\nas also the distinctions in regard to meats and drinks; others thought\nthey were not. Hence the exhortation which is subjoined to mutual\nforbearance. That the distinctions referred to as to days, were those\nnoted in the Mosaic ritual, and did not include the one contained in\nthe fourth commandment, is manifest from the whole scope of the\nchapter. There is particular reference made to one's freely eating all\nthings, while another would eat only herbs; and accordingly the\nfollowing rule, to be respectively observed, is laid down: \"Let not\nhim that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him that\neateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath received him.\" This\nquotation clearly evinces that the Apostle was treating of _ritual_\ndistinctions, and not of _that_ distinction of days which was\nconstituted by the ancient law of the Sabbath.\n\nAgain, the abrogation of the Decalogue is supposed to be taught in\nRomans 7:4, 5, 6. \"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to\nthe law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another,\neven to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth\nfruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sin\nwhich were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit\nunto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead\nwherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and\nnot in the oldness of the letter.\" But if the term law here includes\nthe _moral_ as well as the _ceremonial_ law, it is manifest that\nbelievers are not said to be delivered from it, considered in any\nother light than as _a covenant of works_. Certainly they are not\ndelivered from it as _a rule of obedience_. To suppose this, is\ninconsistent with Christ's sermon on the mount, before alluded to, and\nmany other decisive proofs of the perpetual obligation of the\nDecalogue. It is probable the Apostle had special reference to the\ndeliverance of believers from the _curse_ of the moral law. This is\nreasonably inferred from the clause, \"that being dead wherein we were\nheld.\" If any thing more pertaining to this law be intended, it must\nbe its original character when given to Adam as a covenant of works or\nof life. For surely we are not and cannot be delivered from it as a\nrule of obedience, so long as God is what he is, and we are what we\nare. Seeing that as long as the relation constituted by his character\nas Supreme Ruler, and by ours as moral subjects, exists, we shall be\nbound to love him supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves, which is\nthe fulfilling of this law. And to suppose that this law, as a rule of\nobedience, was actually annulled, and that those precepts only are now\nto be considered obligatory, which are enacted or published anew under\nthe Gospel, is to suppose that God, at a certain time, actually\nrescinded the rule requiring supreme love to him, and to our neighbor\nas ourselves, which is palpably inconsistent, and contrary both to the\ncurrent of Scripture and the nature of things. It would be maintaining\nthat to be changed which is manifestly unchangeable. It would imply\nthat, for the time being, the obligation recognized by the law did not\nexist; that the tie by which God and moral beings are united, was\nsundered, not by rebellion on the part of his subjects, but by his own\nact of abrogation. Can this be admitted?\n\nBut if it _were_ admissible, and if no part of this law is binding on\nChristians but what is newly enacted or particularly recognized under\nthe Gospel dispensation, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment could\nnot in this way be set aside; because its continued obligation is\nplainly taught in the New Testament. It is altogether a mistake, that\nwe have no express recognition of this precept under the Christian\ndispensation. It is plainly recognized by the Savior in Matthew\n5:17-19, where he says, that he \"came not to destroy the law, but to\nfulfill;\" that \"one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the\nlaw, till all be fulfilled;\" and that \"whosoever shall break one of\nthese least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the\nleast in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them,\nshall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.\" If any commandment of\nthis law is binding, the fourth is binding of course, even if it\nshould be called the least. It is also recognized in the following\ndeclaration of Christ, Mark 2:27--\"The Sabbath was made for man, and\nnot man for the Sabbath.\" The word _man_ is here obviously used for\nthe entire race--not for a part--not for the Jews in distinction from\nthe Gentiles--not for those who lived under the Old Testament\ndispensation, or till the time of Christ's death; but for man in his\nprotracted existence during all future periods of time, i. e. _for\nmankind in general_. This is the plain import of the declaration. And\nif we render the original with the article, it is still more evident\nthat the entire race is included. \"The Sabbath was made for _the\nman_,\" i. e. for Adam, the original parent of man, including, of\ncourse, his posterity. But, according to either rendering, the entire\nhuman race is manifestly included in the term. The Sabbath, then, was\nas truly made for the Gentiles as for the Jews; and for those who\nshould live after the crucifixion, as for those who lived before;\nwhich is an explicit recognition of its perpetual obligation.\n\nThe same recognition also appears from its continued observance under\nthe ministry of the Apostles, and there being not the least hint or\nstir in reference to its abrogation, or to the substitution of another\nday in its room. The weekly Sabbath is frequently mentioned in the\nApostolic records, as a part of practical duty, and it was\nunquestionably the seventh day. Thus we have the continued obligation\nof the Sabbath sanctioned by Apostolic example. If, therefore, a new\nedition, or an express recognition of the Sabbath of the fourth\ncommandment be considered necessary, to bind the consciences of men\nunder the new dispensation, the foregoing considerations will show\nthat we have such an edition or recognition, as truly as we have of\nthe other precepts of the Decalogue. So that nothing is gained in\nregard to setting aside the seventh day of the week, by attempting to\nshow the abrogation of the Decalogue. If those precepts of that law\nwhich require that we should have no other gods before the Lord--that\nwe should not kill, nor commit adultery, nor steal--are newly enjoined\nor expressly recognized under the present dispensation, and,\nconsequently, universally binding, the same is true of the fourth\ncommandment, which requires the keeping of the seventh day.\n\nAgain, an attempt is made to prove the abrogation of the original\nSabbath, by showing that the entire Decalogue was peculiar to the\nJewish nation, constituting a national covenant, which, at the coming\nof Christ, was annulled, and a new covenant introduced. But admitting\nthat it was delivered immediately to them, in the form of a national\ncovenant, this does not in the least imply that it was not equally\nbinding, as a rule of obedience, upon other portions of the human\nfamily. We might as well argue that the New Testament belonged merely\nto the primitive Christians, because it was delivered directly to\nthem, and constituted the rule of their conduct and the basis of their\nhopes. Yea, we might as well suppose that no nation except the Jews\nwere bound not to have any other gods before the Lord, not to kill,\nnot to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, as to\nsuppose that the Decalogue was purely of a national character, and\nbinding merely on that people during their continuance as a national\nchurch. And, as the Decalogue was not merely national _as a whole_, so\nthere was nothing national in the fourth commandment. It belonged,\nequally with the other nine, to the entire family of man, inasmuch as\nthe essential reasons of all and of either of the commandments, were\nof universal obligation.\n\nAgain, that the original Sabbath was peculiar to the Jews, and\nconsequently abrogated by the introduction of the new dispensation, is\nargued from its being specially urged upon them by the consideration\nof their deliverance from Egypt. But this argument is of no force,\nbecause the same reason is urged in the preface to the entire\nDecalogue.\n\nFor the same purpose, also, an argument is founded upon the fact that\nthe fourth commandment was enforced with a deadly penalty. But this\nargument also fails; because a similar penalty was annexed to the\nbreach of the other precepts of this law. The truth of the case is,\nthat these penalties belonged not to the Decalogue itself as first\npromulgated, any more than they belong to it now under the milder\ndispensation of the Gospel. They were added in the Mosaic ritual, and\nconstituted a part of the political arrangements for the time being.\nTheir abrogation, therefore, affects not the original law. Though\nthere be no civil power now given to the church to enforce obedience\nto this precept by temporal punishments, as formerly, the sacredness\nand obligation of the institution are not thereby at all affected. The\nsin of disobedience will be visited in God's own time.\n\nAgain, some have inferred the abrogation of the former Sabbath, or at\nleast its change, from our Lord's vindication of the act of the\ndisciples, in plucking the ears of corn, and rubbing them in their\nhands, as they passed through the corn-fields on the Sabbath day, and\nfrom his saying, that \"the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath\nday,\" Mark 2:23-28. But there is evidently nothing in this narrative,\nor in this declaration, to justify such an inference. It must be\nadmitted on all hands, that the fourth commandment was obligatory, as\noriginally given, till the death of Christ, if no further; and\ntherefore Christ, who \"was made under the law,\" was bound to obey it\nin its original strictness. Admitting that he possessed the right, in\na given instance, to intermit its obligation, it is not consistent to\nmaintain that he did it; because he came to render perfect and\nuniversal obedience. Hence he affirmed, that one jot or one tittle\nshould in no wise pass from the law \"till all be fulfilled.\" His whole\nlife was a perfect comment on the requirements of the law. Had he\nfailed in the least particular, he would have been inadequate to the\ngreat purposes of our salvation. It is obvious, therefore, that the\ntransaction alluded to was not, under the circumstances, a breach of\nthe fourth commandment, but in perfect accordance with its\nprescriptions--the labor implied by the act of the disciples being a\nmatter of urgent necessity. \"It is lawful,\" said he, \"to do well on\nthe Sabbath day.\" Neither does the declaration, that \"the Son of Man\nis Lord also of the Sabbath day,\" imply that he abrogated or changed\nit, but rather that he was bound and engaged to protect it as a divine\ninstitution, and to enforce an enlightened and strict obedience to its\nrequirements.\n\nThe foregoing being the principal proofs adduced for the abrogation of\nthe Decalogue, and the original Sabbath, it is evident that this view\nof the subject cannot be sustained. It is not sanctioned by any plain\nscriptural evidence. It is, therefore, palpably absurd to rest so\nimportant a matter upon so slender a basis. It is laying violent hands\non a code of moral and immutable precepts, given by God, and\npromulgated under peculiar and terrible signs of purity and majesty,\nto vindicate a practice which was introduced long after the\ncommencement of the Christian era.\n\nAnother portion of the observers of the first day, seeing the\nabsurdity of holding to the abrogation of the Decalogue, and,\nconsequently, of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, readily admit\nits perpetual obligation, but alledge that the Sabbath is changed,\nunder the new dispensation, from the _seventh_ to the _first_ day of\nthe week--thus transferring the authority for keeping the seventh day\nto the first. It is not pretended that we have an explicit warrant\nfrom God, pointing out and authorizing the change in question, but\nthat we have what is tantamount to such a warrant. We will examine the\nprincipal arguments for this supposed change.\n\nIn the first place, this change is inferred from the resurrection of\nChrist on the first day of the week, which is supposed to be an event\nof such magnitude as to constitute an _equal_ and even _greater_\nreason for observing the first day of the week as the weekly Sabbath\nunder the new dispensation, than that which existed for observing the\nseventh under the old. But what does this argument amount to? It is\nnot perfectly clear that the resurrection occurred on the first day of\nthe week. Very plausible reasons may be assigned for the opinion, that\nit occurred on the evening of the seventh day, although it was not\npublicly declared till the morning of the first. But admitting that it\noccurred on the morning of the first day, how does this prove that it\nwas substituted for the seventh day as the Sabbath? Is the inference\nabsolutely necessary? Is there any designation of the first day for a\nsabbatic purpose? If another than the seventh day was in any wise\nadmissible, as according better with the Christian dispensation and\nthe work of redemption, why should we fix upon the day of Christ's\nresurrection, rather than the day of his birth, or of his crucifixion,\nor of his ascension? Will it be alledged, as a reason for the\npreference, that he finished the work of redemption on the day of his\nresurrection? This reason might be offered with equal if not superior\npropriety, for commemorating the day of his crucifixion; because, when\nhe bowed his head and gave up the ghost; he said, \"_It is finished_,\"\nwhich is more than is said in reference to the day of his\nresurrection. If a day were to be selected as a weekly Sabbath, which\nwas \"validly the day of redemption,\" it seems most proper to select\nthe day of his death, which was the end of his temptation and conflict\nwith the powers of darkness, and the severest test of his obedience;\nor the day of his final ascension, when he emphatically entered into\nhis rest, and was crowned King in Zion. If, therefore, a day were to\nbe selected, under the new economy, for the appropriate commemoration\nof the work of redemption, as the seventh day was for the\ncommemoration of the work of creation, it is by no means clear that it\nshould be the day of the resurrection. It might with equal, perhaps\ngreater propriety, be some other day of the week. And hence, the\ndifferent preferences of Christians might clash, and by that means\ncounteract in a great measure the design of a Sabbath. But, in truth,\nthe argument from the resurrection in favor of the first day of the\nweek, rests upon the wisdom of man and not upon the appointment of\nGod. It seems to men befitting the ends of a weekly Sabbath, under the\nChristian dispensation, to observe the first rather than the seventh\nday, and hence a change is inferred, without any express authority\nfrom God to that effect; as though it were lawful to change a divine\ninstitution when it _appears to us_ that greater reasons exist for a\nchange, than for its unamended continuance--a principle which would\njustify all the innovations and extravagancies of Popery. But no such\npower is given unto men. However many and important the reasons which\nexist in human view for the change in the Sabbath contended for, it is\ninvading God's prerogative to make a change without his express\nwarrant. So long, therefore, as there is no divine enactment which\ngoes to authorize this change, but the permanent and unvaried nature\nof the entire Decalogue expressly forbids it, as does the continued\npractice of the primitive church, it is grossly erroneous and\npresumptuous to make it. This argument for the supposed change is\nsurely without any validity.\n\nIn the next place, it is alledged that Christ's appearance to the\ndisciples, after his resurrection, on the first day of the week, marks\nthis as the Christian Sabbath. This argument is adopted both by those\nwho hold to the abrogation of the former institution, and those who\ncontend for its change. But, in reality, it is as devoid of solid\nweight as the one previously examined. It is easy to account for his\nappearing in the course of the day of his resurrection, or of the\nfirst declaration of it, because the earliest information of this\ngreat event was of the utmost importance to the afflicted and\ndesponding disciples. It was important, also, as a testimony to the\ntruth of the Savior's prediction that he would rise on the third day.\nThere is nothing in his several appearances during that day, which\nseems intended for any other purpose than giving the necessary proof\nof his resurrection, and the light and consolation which the\ncircumstances of the disciples required. There is nothing in either of\nthem which favors the idea of a new Sabbath. But the circumstance of\nhis appearing to the two disciples who were on a journey to Emmaus,\nand traveling a while with them, which was a distance much too long\nfor a Sabbath day's journey, expressly forbids it, as it shows that it\nwas regarded as a day for labor. And as to his appearance the\nfollowing evening, there is nothing in that circumstance which savors\nof a newly appointed Sabbath. The disciples were not assembled\ntogether to keep a Sabbath, but \"for fear of the Jews.\" Besides,\naccording to the Jewish method of reckoning time, this evening\nactually belonged to the second day of the week. So that all which is\nsaid concerning his appearances on this day and evening, is perfectly\ndevoid of proof of a change of the Sabbath.\n\nAs to the next appearance recorded, there is no evidence that it\noccurred on the first day of the week. The record states, that \"After\neight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them.\nThen came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and\nsaid, Peace be unto you.\" Surely the phrase, \"and after eight days,\"\ncannot be fairly construed to mean a week. Who can tell but that he\nappeared on the _ninth_ day after his first appearance? But even if it\ncould be so interpreted as to mean precisely a week, and hence to show\nthat his second appearance took place on the first day, as before, it\nwould be no proof of the point in question, because the subject of the\nSabbath was not introduced in any form.\n\nThe next instance of his appearing is very far from corroborating the\nopinion that he sanctioned the first day as the New Testament Sabbath\nby appearing on it; for the disciples, or some of them, were fishing\nat the sea of Tiberias, and consequently were not observing the first\nday as a Sabbath. Indeed, this appearance must have taken place as\nlate as the second day of the week, if not later; for they had been\nengaged in fishing, as the record will show, the day before he\nappeared to them. And they could not have been so engaged on the\n_seventh_ day, because it would have been contrary to the universal\nand unbroken practice of their nation. Hence it could not have been on\nthe first day of the week that Christ appeared to them. It must have\nbeen on the second or some later day of the week. The argument,\ntherefore, from the several appearances of Christ, amounts to nothing.\n\nThe next, and the principal argument for the change of the Sabbath, is\nthe supposed Apostolic practice of meeting on the first day of the\nweek for public worship and the breaking of bread. It is often\nconfidently affirmed, that the keeping of the first day instead of the\nseventh is sanctioned by Apostolic usage. The proof of this position\nrests mainly on two passages. Let us examine them.\n\nThe first is Acts 20:7. \"And upon the first day of the week, when the\ndisciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready\nto depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight.\" But\nis there any thing in this transaction, or the attendant\ncircumstances, which clearly and undeniably proves an Apostolic\nexample in favor of a new Sabbath, or of keeping the first day of the\nweek, in any manner, as a substitute for the former institution?\nSurely there is not. The passage does not so much as prove that the\npractice of meeting for worship on the first day of the week was then\ncommon and general. But if it did, it would not determine the change\ncontended for. There is nothing said in the narrative, which\ncharacterizes it as a Sabbath. Assembling for public worship is proper\non any day of the week; and so is the breaking of bread. The Supper\nwas first administered on one of the six working days; and there is\nnothing in the Scriptures which restricts its subsequent\nadministration to a particular day--not even to the authorized\nSabbath. Besides, in this case, the breaking of bread was deferred\ntill after midnight. Of course, according to the Jewish reckoning of\ntime, it was attended actually on the second day; and this must have\nbeen the case, also, according to the prevailing custom among\nobservers of the first day, of commencing the day at midnight. It\nseems, therefore, that the Apostle and his brethren were not very\nprecise in regard to its being done on the first day. Let the most be\nmade of this passage, and it lacks a divine designation of the first\nday as the Christian Sabbath; and hence it is entirely wanting as to\nthe requisite evidence of a change in the sabbatic law. Surely, if\nthere had been such a change, and this, with one more instance of\nmeeting on the first day of the week, were to contain the evidence for\nall after generations, we should have been informed of the fact.\nSomething would have been said to determine that the first day of the\nweek was regarded as a Sabbath, and that it had taken the place of the\nseventh. But there is nothing of this. The record is perfectly silent\nin regard to either point. Besides, it is evident that the original\nSabbath continued to be observed, as already noticed, throughout the\nentire period of New Testament history. This is so plain a fact, that\nno one who gives the subject a candid examination will deny it. This\nshows the opinion of a new Sabbath--observed, as it must have been, in\nconnection with the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and without a\nword being said on the subject, or the least objection, stir, query,\nor excitement whatever being raised--to be perfectly preposterous.\nSuch is the result of this reasoning from a supposed Apostolic\nexample, giving the passage its widest possible scope, as implying a\ncommon practice of meeting for public worship on the first day of the\nweek. But in reality there is nothing in this text which proves or\nimplies that such a practice was common at that period. For aught\nappears, it might have been an occasional meeting, appointed merely in\nconsequence of Paul's being about to depart on the morrow. Therefore,\nto adopt a practice so important as the one in question, upon such\nvague, uncertain, and inadequate testimony--especially when, in order\nthereto, we must dispose of a plain and positive command of God\nrespecting the observance of the seventh day, and of a usage as old as\nthe completion of the creation--is unreasonable in the extreme.\n\nAnother passage quoted in proof of an Apostolic example of keeping the\nfirst day of the week, and, consequently, in support of the opinion\nthat the Sabbath is changed, is 1\u00a0Corinthians 16:2. \"Upon the first\nday of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath\nprospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.\" This passage,\nlike the others, does not imply that the first day was then commonly\nand generally regarded as a day for public worship. Indeed, it does\nnot necessarily imply a public meeting of any kind. The direction for\n\"every one to lay by him in store,\" for the benefit of the poor saints\nat Jerusalem, \"on the first day of the week,\" necessarily amounts to\nno more than an appointment of this day to make up their bounty _at\nhome_, so that it might be sure to be ready when the Apostle should\ncome--a very judicious arrangement, as the time of his coming for it\nwas uncertain, and he would not know how to wait. But if it be\nunderstood to imply anything more, it is simply that they should bring\ntheir donations together publicly on the first day of the week, so as\nto be prepared in the fullest sense for the Apostle's visit.\nTherefore, according to this view of the case, it proves no more than\nan occasional meeting on this day for the purpose of a public\ncontribution for an important object of benevolence. But even if it\ncould be so construed as clearly to imply that it was then a common\nand general practice to meet for public worship and instruction on\nthis day, it would not thereby be pointed out to us as the Christian\nSabbath, and a substitute for the seventh day, seeing that it contains\nno information to that effect, and that no divine warrant appears on\nany part of the New Testament records for the supposed change.\nMeetings for public worship, taking up of collections, and even\nbreaking of bread, do not constitute a Sabbath, though they are proper\nexercises for such a day. _To sabbatize_ is to rest from our own\nsecular labors, and keep a season holy to God. These proofs for a\nchange of the Sabbath, therefore, which are unquestionably the best\nthat can be produced, are utterly deficient, and the argument\ntherefrom, as generally presented, is deceptive, and unworthy of\nconfidence.\n\nAnother of the proofs adduced for the supposed change of the Sabbath,\nis the following prediction. Psalm 118:22-24. \"The stone which the\nbuilders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the\nLord's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the\nLord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.\" But this, like all\nthe previous quotations, wants solidity. The main points in the\nargument are _assumed_. First, it is assumed, that Christ's becoming\nthe head of the corner refers to the day of his resurrection; whereas\nthere is no conclusive evidence that it refers to this rather than to\nthe day of his birth, or of his entrance on his public ministry, or of\nhis final ascension into heaven. Next, it is assumed that the day\nspoken of is a natural day of twenty-four hours; whereas this word is\noften used to designate an indefinite period of time--particularly the\nGospel era (John 8:56)--and may very probably be so used here. Again,\nit is assumed, that the day mentioned is the first day of the week;\nwhereas there is nothing which designates this rather than some other\nin the course of his mediatorial work, allowing a natural day to be\nreferred to. And even if the resurrection day be intended, it is not\ncertain that this occurred on the first day of the week. It is further\nassumed, that the emphasis which is laid on the day alluded to as \"the\nday which the Lord hath made,\" and in which the church would \"rejoice\nand be glad,\" determines it to be the New Testament Sabbath in\ndistinction from the Sabbath of the fourth commandment; whereas there\nis nothing in these circumstances which necessarily intimates any such\nchange, while there are various important considerations by which this\nopinion is absolutely precluded. The entire argument, therefore, fails.\n\nAnother argument for the change of the Sabbath is based upon the\nsupposition that the day of Pentecost occurred on the first day of the\nweek, which was a remarkable season of the outpouring of the Spirit,\nand of Christ's triumph as the risen and exalted Savior. But this will\nappear, on a very little examination, to be wholly inconclusive. In\nthe first place, it is far from being conclusively proved that this\nevent occurred on the first day of the week. It is much more likely to\nhave occurred either on the _fifth_ or the _seventh_. Indeed, it is\nquite manifest from the best calculations that can be made, from the\ntime of eating the passover supper, the first paschal sabbath, the\ncrucifixion and the resurrection, that it occurred on one or the other\nof these days. Secondly, if the feast of Pentecost had actually\noccurred on the first day of the week, this would furnish no proof of\nits being the New Testament Sabbath, in the absence of a divine\nwarrant to that effect.\n\nThere is one other argument for the change in question, founded on the\nsupposed application of the title \"the Lord's day,\" to the first day\nof the week. The only passage referred to for the purpose of\nsustaining it, is Revelation 1:10. \"I was in the spirit on the Lord's\nday.\" But that the day here called the Lord's day, is the first day of\nthe week, is merely assumed, and hence is not to be considered as\nproved. It is not, in fact, _probable_ that this is the day referred\nto. It is much more likely that the expression here used refers to the\nday of Christ's reign; and that St. John meant to declare that in\nspirit he had a view of the scenes of that period. This use of the\nterm _day_ is sanctioned by the Savior's declaration, \"Abraham\nrejoiced to see my day,\" (John 8:56,) as well as by the Psalmist's,\nwho, when speaking of the glories of Christ's kingdom, says, \"This is\nthe day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it,\"\n(Psalm 118:23.) The nature of the visions afterwards described also\ncorroborates this view of the passage, and warrants the opinion that\nthe expression \"Lord's day,\" (or, as some translate it, _lordly_ day,)\nhere used, does not refer to a natural day, but to a longer period of\ntime. If, however, these words be understood to refer to a natural\nday, it is more likely to be the seventh day, which God had blessed\nand sanctified for his special service, than the first day. The\nseventh day is called by Him \"_my holy day_,\" and \"_the holy of the\nLord_\"--phrases very similar to the one in this passage. This was also\nthe Sabbath which was made for man, and of which Christ says he is\nLord. And since it was observed up to the close of the New Testament\nhistory, it would be perfectly natural for John to speak of it as \"the\nLord's day.\" Further, there is no evidence that the first day of the\nweek was denominated the Lord's day, at so early a period. Only one\nwriter mentions the expression till towards the close of the second\ncentury; and the reputed author of this passage, when speaking, in his\nGospel, (which was written some years later than the Apocalypse,) of\nthe resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week; never\nintimates that the day should be called by any other name. The learned\nMorer, though an advocate for the first day, in mentioning the\ndifferent days to which this phrase may be applied, acknowledges the\nentire uncertainty as to what day is intended, and says, \"It is very\nlikely that the more solemn and public use of the words was not\nobserved until about the time of Sylvester II., when, by Constantine's\ncommand, it became an injunction.\" It is evident, therefore, that this\npassage cannot justly be used as proof that the Sabbath had been\ntransferred to the first day of the week.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe have now examined the proofs commonly adduced for the abrogation or\nchange of the original Sabbath, and have found them utterly\ninsufficient and deceptive. Hence the claims of the Sabbath of the\nfourth commandment, without alteration, are fully sustained. The\nadvocates for the first day are aware that if an abrogation or change\nof the original Sabbath law cannot be made out, the seventh day is\nstill the true Sabbath. Dr. Dwight, for instance, makes the following\nadmission: \"If we cannot find in the Scriptures plain and ample proof\nof the abrogation of the original day, or the substitution of a new\none, the seventh day undoubtedly remains in full force and obligation,\nand is now to be celebrated by all the race of Adam.\" Here, then, the\nlaboring oar is confessedly put into the hands of the advocates of the\nfirst day; and with what success they have used it, the foregoing\nexamination will show. We ask, is it not a total failure? Has such\n\"plain and ample proof\" been produced from the Scriptures for the\nsupposed abrogation or change? Indeed, it is evident that neither one\nnor the other of these things is _practicable_. An _abrogation_ is not\npracticable; for the Decalogue, in which the law of the Sabbath is\ncontained, is unchangeable. \"Not one jot or one tittle shall in any\nwise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;\" which implies its\ncontinued obligation, as long as moral beings exist. And the _change_\ncontended for is not practicable; because the substitution of another\nday for the seventh would annul the institution. It contains no\nwarrant to keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath, but the\nseventh only. Its authority is limited to the seventh day, and cannot\nbe transferred. The reason given for its institution, likewise, is\nlimited to this day. It is obvious that it will not apply to another.\nThe Sabbath law, therefore, contains no warrant whatever for the\nobservance of the first day of the week. If the day is changed, the\ninstitution is annulled; and another institution, in some respects\nsimilar, but not in all, is introduced, in the total absence of\n_divine_ authority, and hence rests altogether upon that which is\n_human_. This consideration, of itself, shows the absurdity of holding\nto the change of the original day, while the validity of the entire\nDecalogue is admitted.\n\nFrom what has been here presented, it is evident that the Scriptures\ndo not authorize the abrogation or change of the original Sabbath, but\nenforce its observance by precept and example. The opposite view is\nsupported wholly by tradition and human authority, as an impartial\nexamination of the history of the change will show. Have we not a\nright to expect, then, that when the great body of professing\nChristians shall become enlightened on this subject, and have\nsufficient grace and fortitude to act up to their convictions, the\nresult will be, a general return to the faithful keeping of the\nSabbath of the fourth commandment?\n\n Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,\n No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.\n\n\n\n\n[No. 4.]\n\nTHE SABBATH AND LORD'S DAY;\n\nA HISTORY OF THEIR OBSERVANCE\n\nIN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.\n\n NEW YORK:\n PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,\n No. 9 Spruce-Street\n 1852.\n\n\nIn the preceding numbers of this series of Tracts, we have given an\naccount of the institution of the Sabbath, and the reasons for\nbelieving it to be moral and perpetually binding, together with an\nexamination of the authority for a change of the day. As the result of\nthis examination, we have been driven to the conclusion, that the\nSabbath was given to man in Paradise; that the fourth commandment was\nbut a re\u00ebnforcement of it; that the Scriptures do not authorize a\nchange of the day of the Sabbath; and that, therefore, _the seventh\nday of the week ought now to be observed by all men_. But there are\nmany persons who admit the early institution of the Sabbath, and the\nabsence of any authority from the Scriptures for a change, yet suppose\nthat the example of the early Christians, and the sayings of \"the\nFathers,\" warrant them in observing the first day of the week, to the\nneglect of the seventh. For the benefit of such, we now come to\nconsider the history of the Sabbath since the establishment of the\nChristian Church. By consenting to do this, it is not meant to admit,\nthat if a regard for the first day of the week can be traced to near\nthe time of the Apostles, it is necessarily of apostolic authority;\nfor it is affirmed by St. Paul, that even in his time \"the mystery of\niniquity had begun to work.\" We believe that \"the Holy Scripture\ncontaineth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is\nnot read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of\nany man;\" and we cannot admit, therefore, that the early existence of\nthe practice is sufficient to give it divine authority, unless\nsanctioned by the inspired writings. In order to establish the claims\nof the first day of the week to be the Sabbath, two things are\nindispensable: 1. To prove from the Scriptures that the seventh day\n(which all acknowledge to have been originally the Sabbath) has been\nabrogated. 2. To show from the same source that the first day has been\nappointed in the place of the seventh. It is not sufficient to prove\nthat a religious regard was early paid to the first day. There is an\nimportant distinction between _the Sabbath_ and a _religious\nfestival_; the former requiring abstinence from all ordinary labor,\nand devotion of a whole day to the public and private duties of\nreligion; the latter requiring only the commemoration of some\nimportant event, and allowing the time not occupied in the public\ncelebration of it to be devoted to labor or amusement. That this\ndistinction was understood to exist between the regard for the seventh\nday and that for the first day, seems evident from the fact that in\nthe early history of the church no Christians are charged with\nabandoning the Sabbath, while we are assured that after the meetings\non the first day of the week they went about their ordinary labor.\nThis apparently innocent regard for the day on which Christ first\nappeared to his disciples after his resurrection, it is believed, has\ngiven rise to the whole apostacy from the Sabbath. The following pages\nare designed to show the steps by which it was brought about.\n\n\nThe Sabbath in the Apostolic Church.\n\nBefore entering upon the history of the Sabbath, as it is derived from\nuninspired records, it is proper to inquire how it was regarded by\nJesus Christ and his Apostles.\n\nThat Jesus Christ embraced the observance of the Sabbath among other\nduties enjoined in the Decalogue, is evident from Matt. 5:17:--\"Think\nnot that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come\nto destroy, but to fulfill; for verily I say unto you, till heaven and\nearth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,\ntill all be fulfilled.\" He here declared the precepts of this law,\nwithout distinction, to be permanent and unchangeable. Had he\ncommanded his disciples to keep the Sabbath, by enacting a new\nprecept, it would have been equivalent to saying that he considered it\nin the light of a ceremonial and expiring institution, which, in\ntruth, it was not. He therefore most wisely enforced all those\nprecepts as inseparable, unchangeable, and unrepealable. And he\nplainly said, in the connection referred to, that no person is worthy\nof a place in his church, who will break any one of these\ncommandments, or teach others to do so. In all his subsequent\nallusions to this subject, he speaks of the Sabbath as an ancient and\nwell-established ordinance, founded in the nature and fitness of\nthings, made for and adapted to the uses of mankind. (Mark 2:27.) His\n_example_ was in strict conformity with his teachings on this subject.\nHis \"_custom_\" was to go to places of public worship, and to preach\nthe Gospel on the Sabbath. His _disciples_, being educated in the\nobservance of the Sabbath, could have entertained no doubts as to its\nperpetuity, nor have reasons to suppose that Christianity relaxed\ntheir obligation to observe it. It is very certain, that during the\nwhole time that our Lord was with his disciples before his death, he\ngave no intimation to them that the duty of keeping the Sabbath was to\nbe in any wise affected by his death; and we find that after this\nevent, the disciples \"rested the Sabbath day, according to the\ncommandment.\" (Luke 23:56.) Further, our Saviour himself, when\nspeaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, an event not to take place\nuntil forty years after his death, tells his disciples to pray that\ntheir flight might not be on the Sabbath day. It is difficult to\nconceive why this day should be spoken of at so late a period, unless\nit was to continue.\n\nThe same views respecting the sacredness of the Sabbath seem to have\nbeen entertained by the Apostles, after the resurrection of Christ,\nthat they held before his death; and they appear to have occupied that\nday as they had formerly done, in attending places of public worship,\nand preaching the Gospel. See Acts 13:14, 42, 44, where it is said,\n\"They came to Antioch, in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the\nSabbath day.\" After Paul had preached Christ as the true Messiah, \"and\nwhen the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought\nthat these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.\" \"And the\nnext Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word\nof God.\" Or, see Acts 16:13, where, \"on the Sabbath we went out of the\ncity, by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made.\" Or Acts\n15:21--\"For Moses, of old time, hath in every city them that preach\nhim, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day.\" This last passage\nis given by St. James as a reason why they should write to the Gentile\nconverts only that \"they abstain from things offered to idols,\" &c.\nFrom this it is apparent that the custom was common, both to hold\nmeetings on the Sabbath day, and for the Gentile Christians to attend\nthose meetings. If it was not common, the reading of Moses would not\nbenefit them. If it was common, then they kept the Sabbath.\n\nSt. Paul, in 1\u00a0Thess. 2:14, says to the Thessalonians, \"For ye,\nbrethren, became followers (imitators) of the churches of God, which\nin Judea are in Christ Jesus.\" And as these Gentile Christians were\nfollowers of the churches in Judea, so they were ensamples, or\npatterns, to all the believers in Macedonia, and Achaia. (Ch. 1:7.) As\nto the character of the churches in Judea touching the Sabbath, we\nneed only to consult Acts 21:20. It is there asserted, that there were\nmany thousands of the Jews who believed, and that they were all\nzealous of the law. And the context shows that they were zealous of\neven the ceremonies of the Jewish ritual. Hence we infer, that there\nwas uniformity with the Jewish and Gentile Christians, in the\nobservance of the Sabbath, and that the whole apostolic church\nreligiously kept it.\n\nNotwithstanding the Sabbath continued to be observed until the sacred\ncanon was closed, it has been quite common, since the Reformation, to\nrefer to certain passages of Scripture as indicating that the first\nday had been, or was to be, substituted for the seventh. It is said\nthat Christ's meeting with his disciples on the evening of his\nresurrection day indicates that it was to be religiously regarded\nthereafter. Those who make such use of this circumstance seem to\noverlook, what it is very important to remember, that two of the\ndisciples traveled from Jerusalem to Emmaus and back on that day, a\ndistance of fifteen miles, and a part of this in company with the\nSaviour. This fact alone shows that it could not have been regarded as\na Sabbath. Nor is there any thing in the circumstances of the meeting\nto indicate it. The disciples were not all present, and those who were\npresent had assembled for other reasons, without any expectation of\nseeing the Master.\n\nThe meeting \"_after eight days_\" affords no help. Who can say\npositively that this expression means a week? Or, granting that it\ndoes mean a week, what does the passage make for the religious\ncharacter of the first day? Jesus met his disciples on one occasion\nwhen fishing, and was seen of them forty days. Now, if his meeting\nwith them proves the day of that meeting to be a Sabbath, a fishing\nday would be such, and the whole forty.\n\nIn regard to those two places, (Acts 20:7, and 1\u00a0Cor. 16:2,) where the\nexpression \"_first day of the week_\" occurs, they make nothing for the\nsanctification of the day, since there is no hint of any such thing.\nThe meetings there spoken of were for special purposes, and nothing\nwas done at either which might not with perfect propriety have been\ndone on any day. It is not quite certain that the passage, \"They came\ntogether to break bread,\" refers to the Lord's Supper. Indeed, both\nSt. Chrysostom among the ancients, and Calvin among the moderns, deny\nthat it was to celebrate the Supper, and refer it to a friendly meal.\n\nThe text, Rev.\u00a01:10, where St. John was \"_in the spirit on the Lord's\nday_,\" is likewise not a good proof text. That reference is there had\nto the first day of the week, is by no means certain. There are some\nwho refer it to a much longer period--to the gospel era; while others,\namong whom is Bede, refer it to the day of judgment. The fact that\nnone of those who early mention the Lord's day refer to this passage,\nis much against it. In these circumstances, it would not be safe to\ndraw conclusions in regard to practice therefrom. Indeed, none of the\nearliest writers found the observance of the Lord's day upon the\nScriptures.\n\n\nObservance of the Sabbath from the time of the Apostles to Constantine.\n\nThus far we have been guided by the inspired Scriptures, and we think\nthey prove beyond dispute, that the Christians of the apostolic age\nhad received no new doctrine concerning the Sabbath, but continued\nwithout any change to devote the seventh day of the week to the duties\nof religion. But we now enter a period in which the history of the\nSabbath must be derived from other sources. It may be difficult to\ntrace exactly every step which has been taken, as the histories of the\nearly ages are very defective on many subjects. They have come to us,\nto a considerable extent, through the church of Rome; and since she\nclaims to have changed the day of the Sabbath, it is not to be\nexpected that testimony against herself would be very faithfully\npreserved. In pursuing our sketch, we shall follow the best lights we\nhave to guide us.\n\nAfter the period described in the Acts of the Apostles, Christianity\nsoon became widely spread in the Roman empire, which, at that time,\nextended over most of the civilized world. But as it receded from the\ntime of the Apostles, and the number of its professors increased, the\nchurch became gradually less spiritual, and more disposed to deck the\nsimple religion of Jesus with mysteries and superstitious formalities;\nand the bishops or pastors became ambitious of their authority over\nthe churches. Those churches, even in Gentile cities, appear to have\nbeen composed, at first, principally of converted Jews, who not only\nobserved the weekly Sabbath, but also the feast of the Passover,\nadapted particularly to Christian worship; respecting which, there was\nmuch contention. In the mean time, converts were greatly multiplied\nfrom among the Gentiles and were united with those from the Jews, who,\nnot without reason, considered themselves entitled to some distinction\nas the original founders of the gospel church, and as being better\ninformed in the writings of Moses and the prophets, having been in the\nhabit of reading them every Sabbath in the synagogues.\n\nAbout three years after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, according to\nthe common account, Judea was invaded by the Roman armies, and\nJerusalem was besieged and destroyed, as our Lord had predicted. By\nthis awful calamity, it is supposed that most of the churches in Judea\nwere scattered; for they fled their country at the approach of their\nenemies, as they were taught by Jesus Christ to do. (Matt. 24:16.)\nThis war resulted not only in the breaking up of the nation, and the\ndestruction of a great portion of the people, but also in bringing a\ngeneral odium upon the Jews wherever they were found; so that even the\nChristians of Judea suffered what our Saviour taught them to expect,\n(Matt. 24:9,) \"And ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's\nsake.\" These circumstances, added to the enmity which formerly existed\nbetween the Gentiles and the Jews, produced a prejudice which had its\ninfluence in the church in bringing into disrepute, and in fixing a\nstigma upon, whatever was regarded as Judaism. \"The doctrines of our\nSaviour and the church, flourishing from day to day, continued to\nreceive constant accessions,\" says _Eusebius_, \"but the calamities of\nthe Jews also continued to grow with one accumulation of evil upon\nanother.\" The insurrectionary disposition of the conquered Jews in the\nreign of _Trajan_, in the early part of the second century, and the\ncalamities that followed them, seemed to confirm the opinion that the\nJews were given over by the Almighty to entire destruction. But their\ncalamities increased in the reign of _Adrian_, who succeeded _Trajan_,\nin whose reign the revolt of the Jews again proceeded to many and\ngreat excesses, and _Rufus_, the lieutenant governor of Judea, using\ntheir madness as a pretext, destroyed myriads of men, women and\nchildren, in crowds; and by the laws of war, he reduced their country\nto a state of absolute subjection, and the degraded race to the\ncondition of slaves. The transformation of the church in Jerusalem is\nthus described by _Eusebius_: \"The city of the Jews being thus reduced\nto a state of abandonment for them, and totally stripped of its\nancient inhabitants, and also inhabited by strangers; the Roman city\nwhich subsequently arose changing its name, was called _\u00c6lia_, in\nhonor of the emperor \u00c6lias Adrian; and when the church was collected\nthere of the Gentiles, the first bishop after those of the\ncircumcision was _Marcus_.\" Thus was extinguished the Hebrew church in\nJerusalem, having had a succession of fifteen pastors; \"all which,\"\nsays _Eusebius_, \"they say, were Hebrews from the first. At that time\nthe whole church under them,\" he adds, \"consisted of faithful Hebrews,\nwho continued from the time of the Apostles to the siege that then\ntook place.\"\n\nThis church, which heretofore held the first rank in regard to its\ninfluence, being now composed entirely of Gentiles, and stripped of\nits apostolic character and influence, could no longer successfully\noppose the growing ambition and influence of the bishops of the church\nin the metropolis of the empire.\n\nUp to this period, and for some time after, there does not appear to\nhave been any change in the sentiments or practice of the church, in\nany place, relative to the Sabbath; but from what is related by\nsubsequent writers, which will be noticed in its place, it is certain\nthat it was observed by the churches universally. This fact is so\ngenerally acknowledged by those acquainted with the history of the\nmatter, that we need refer to only a few passages in proof.\n\nThe learned _Grotius_ says, in his Explication of the Decalogue,\n\"Therefore the Christians also, who believed Christ would restore all\nthings to their primitive practice, as Tertullian teacheth in\n_Monogamia_, kept holy the Sabbath, and had their assemblies on that\nday, in which the law was read to them, as appears in Acts 15:21,\nwhich custom remained till the time of the council of Laodicea, about\nA. D. 365, who then thought meet that the gospels also should be read\non that day.\"\n\n_Edward Brerewood_, Professor in Gresham College, London, in a\nTreatise on the Sabbath, 1630, says: \"It is commonly believed that the\nJewish Sabbath was changed into the Lord's day by Christian emperors,\nand they know little who do not know, that _the ancient Sabbath did\nremain and was observed by the eastern churches three hundred years\nafter our Saviour's passion_.\"\n\nAt what time the first day of the week came into notice as a festival\nin the church, it is not easy to determine. The first intimation we\nhave of this, in any ancient writer of acknowledged integrity, is from\nJustin Martyr's Apology for the Christians, about A. D. 140. He is\ncited as saying, \"that the Christians in the city and in the country\nassembled on the day called Sunday, and after certain religious\ndevotions, all returned home to their labors;\" and he assigns as\nreasons for this, that God made the world on the first day, and that\nChrist first showed himself to his disciples on that day after his\nresurrection. These were the best, and probably all the reasons that\ncould then be offered for the practice. He also speaks of Sunday only\nas a festival, on which they performed labor, when not engaged in\ndevotions, and not as a substitute for the Sabbath. From this author\nwe can learn nothing as to the extent of the practice; for though he\nsays this was done by those \"in the city and in the country,\" he may\nhave intended only the city of Rome and its suburbs, since _Justin_,\nalthough a native of Palestine in Syria, is stated by _Eusebius_ to\nhave made his residence in Rome. Nor can we determine from this, that\nhe intended any thing more than that they did thus on the Sunday in\nwhich the church of Rome, a short time after this, is known to have\nclosed the paschal feast, which was observed annually.\n\nIt is contended, however, that mention is made of keeping the first\nday previous to _Justin_. The first intimation of this kind, it is\nbelieved, is from an apocryphal writing, styled the _Epistle of\nBarnabas_; but to this epistle it is objected, that there is no\nevidence of its genuineness. _Eusebius_, who lived near the time when\nit was written, mentions it as a spurious writing, entitled to no\ncredit. _Dr. Milnor_ says it is an injury to St. Barnabas to ascribe\nthis epistle to him. _Mosheim_ says it is the work of some\nsuperstitious Jew of mean abilities. And we think it has but little to\nrecommend it besides its antiquity. Barnabas' theory for observing the\nfirst day, rests upon the tradition that the seventh day was typical\nof the seventh millennium of the age of the world, which would be\npurely a holy age, and that the Sabbath was not to be kept until that\ntime arrived; and he says, \"We keep the eighth day with gladness, in\nwhich Jesus rose from the dead.\"\n\nThe citations from _Ignatius_, are as little to the purpose. In the\npassage of which most use has been made, he did not say that himself\nor any one else kept the Lord's day, as is often asserted. His own\nwords are, that \"the prophets who lived before Christ came to a\nnewness of hope, not by keeping Sabbaths, but by living according to a\nlordly or most excellent life.\" In this passage, Ignatius was speaking\nof altogether a different thing from Sabbath-keeping. There is another\nquotation from him, however, in which he brings out more clearly his\nview of the relation existing between the Sabbath and Lord's day. It\nis as follows: \"Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner, in\nsloth and idleness; but let us keep it after a spiritual manner, not\nin bodily ease, but in the study of the law, and in the contemplation\nof the works of God.\" \"And _after_ we have kept the Sabbath, let every\none that loveth Christ keep the Lord's day _festival_.\" From this it\nseems that he would have the Sabbath kept first, _as such_, and in a\nmanner satisfactory to the strictest Sabbatarian, after which the\nLord's day, not as a Sabbath, but as a festival. Indeed, with this\ndistinction between the _Sabbath_ and a _festival_ before us, it is\neasy to explain all those passages from early historians which refer\nto the first day. We shall find them to be either immediately\nconnected with instructions about such seasons as _Good Friday_ and\n_Holy Thursday_, or in the writings of those who have recommended the\nobservance of these festival days.\n\nIt is also said that _Pliny_, Governor of Bithynia, A. D. 102, in a\nletter to _Trajan_, states that the Christians met on the first day of\nthe week for worship; but by no fair interpretation of his words can\nhe be so understood. He says, in writing about those of his own\nprovince, \"that they were accustomed to assemble on a _stated day_.\"\nThis might be referred to the first day, if there were credible\ntestimony that this day was alone regarded at that time; but as there\nis no evidence of this, and as the Sabbath is known to have been the\nstated day of religious assembling a long time after this, it seems\nmore proper to refer it to the Sabbath.\n\nWe will mention but one more of these misinterpreted citations, and\nthis is from _Dionysius_, bishop of Corinth, who lived a little after\n_Justin_. His letter to _Soter_, bishop of Rome, is cited as saying,\n\"This day we celebrated the holy Dominical day, in which we have read\nyour epistle.\" As given by _Eusebius_, it is thus: \"To-day we have\n_passed the Lord's holy day_,\" &c. The only ground upon which this\nphrase can be referred to the first day, is, that this day was at that\ntime known by the same title that God has given to the Sabbath, (see\nIsaiah 48:13,) of which there is no proof. Therefore it is not just to\ncite this passage as evidence of the observance of the first day at\nthat time.\n\nIt is, indeed, a well-known fact, that the first day has come into\nvery extensive use among the great body of Christians, as the only day\nof weekly rest and worship. The origin of this practice does not\nappear, however, to be as ancient, by some centuries, as many suppose;\nnor was its adoption secured at once, but by slow and gradual advances\nit obtained general notice in Christian countries. This is frankly\nadmitted by _Morer_, an English Episcopalian, in his _Dialogues on the\nLord's day_, p. 236. He says, \"In _St. Jerome's_ time, (that is, in\nthe fifth century,) Christianity had got into the throne as well as\ninto the empire. Yet for all this, the entire sanctification of the\nLord's day proceeded slowly; and that it was the work of time to bring\nit to perfection, appears from the several steps the church made in\nher constitution, and from the decrees of emperors and other princes,\nwherein the prohibitions from servile and civil business advanced by\ndegrees from one species to another, till the day got a considerable\nfigure in the world.\" The same author says, on the same page: \"If the\nChristians in St. Jerome's time, after divine service on the Lord's\nday, followed their daily employments, it should be remembered, that\nthis was not done till the worship was quite over, when they might\nwith innocency enough resume them, because the length of time and the\nnumber of hours assigned for piety were not then so well explained as\nin after ages.\"\n\nIt is probable that no other day could have obtained the same notice\nin ancient times as the first day of the week did; for there were\ncircumstances, aside from the resurrection, that had an influence in\npromoting its observance. It was at first a celebration of the same\ncharacter as the fourth and sixth days of the week, and the annual\nfestivals of saints and martyrs. These celebrations were comparatively\nunobjectionable, when not permitted to interfere with a divine\nappointment; but when they were made to supersede or cause a neglect\nof the Sabbath, they were criminal. In respect to these days of weekly\ncelebration, _Mosheim_, when remarking upon this early period, and the\nregard then paid to the seventh and first days, says, \"Many also\nobserved the fourth day, in which Christ was betrayed, and the sixth\nday, in which he was crucified.\" He adds, \"The time of assembling was\ngenerally in the evening after sunset, or in the morning before the\ndawn.\"\n\n_The respect which the Gentiles had for the first day_, or Sunday,\n_while they were Pagans_, contributed much to render its introduction\neasy, and its weekly celebration popular, among such materials as\ncomposed the body of the church of Rome in the second, third, and\nfourth centuries. The observance of the first day of the week as a\nfestival of the Sun, was very general in those nations from which the\nGentile church received her converts. That an idolatrous worship was\npaid to the Sun and other heavenly bodies by the Gentiles, the Old\nTestament abundantly testifies; and this kind of adoration paid to the\nSun in later times, is as plainly a matter of historical record.\n_Thomas Bampfield_, an English writer of the seventeenth century,\nquoting _Verstegan's_ Antiquities, p. 68, says: \"Our ancestors in\nEngland, before the light of the Gospel came among them, went very far\nin this idolatry, and dedicated the first day of the week to the\nadoration of the idol of the Sun, and gave it the name of Sunday. This\nidol they placed in a temple, and there sacrificed to it.\" He further\nstates, that from his historical reading, he finds that a great part\nof the world, and particularly those parts of it which have since\nembraced Christianity, did anciently adore the Sun upon Sunday. It is\nalso stated by _Dr. Chambers_, in his Cyclopedia, that \"Sunday was so\ncalled by our idolatrous ancestors, because set apart for the worship\nof the Sun.\" The Greeks and the Latins also gave the same name to the\nfirst day of the week. _Dr. Brownlee_, as quoted by _Kingsbury_, on\nthe Sabbath, p. 223, also says, \"When the descendants of Adam\napostatized from the worship of the true God, they substituted in his\nplace the Sun, that luminary which, more than all others, strikes the\nminds of savage people with religious awe; and which, therefore, all\nheathens worship.\" Attachment to particular days of religious\ncelebration, from habit merely, is well known, even in our own day, to\nbe very strong, and powerful convictions of duty are often required to\nproduce a change. This was no doubt well understood by the teachers of\nChristianity in those times. _Dr. Mosheim_, when treating on that age,\nsays, \"that the leaders imagined that the nations would the more\nreadily receive Christianity when they saw the rites and ceremonies to\nwhich they had been accustomed established in the churches, and the\nsame worship paid to Jesus Christ and his martyrs which they had\nformerly offered to their idol deities. Hence it happened, that in\nthose times, the religion of the Greeks and Romans differed but little\nin its external appearance from that of Christians.\"\n\n_Prejudice against the Jews_, was another influence against the\nSabbath, and in favor of the first day. This was very strong, and\ndirectly calculated to lead the Gentile Christians to fix a stigma\nupon every religious custom of the Jews, and to brand as _Judaism_\nwhatever they supposed had any connection with the Mosaic religion.\nHence it was that in those times, as often occurs in our own, to\nproduce disaffection and disgust to the seventh day as the Sabbath,\nthey spoke of it and reproached its observance as Judaizing. This\nfeeling in relation to Judaism led _Athanasius_, bishop of Alexandria,\nin Egypt, in the fourth century, who with his people then observed the\nSabbath, to say, in his _Interpretation of the Psalms_, \"We assemble\non Saturday, not that we are infected with Judaism, but to worship\nJesus the Lord of the Sabbath.\" In a community of Christians whose\nreligion was formal, and whose celebrations were designed more to act\nupon their passions and senses than to improve their hearts or to\nconform them to divine requirements, a more powerful argument could\nscarcely be used against the Sabbath day, or one that would more\neffectually promote the observance of the first day, which was raised\nup as its rival. _Dr. Neander_ says distinctly, \"Opposition to Judaism\nintroduced the particular festival of Sunday very early.\"\n\n_The observance of the Passover, or Easter, by the early Christians_,\naided the introduction of the first day as a religious festival in the\nchurch, if it was not indeed the direct cause of it. This feast was\nheld by the Asiatic Christians, who began it at the same time the Jews\nbegan their Passover, and ended it in like manner, without regard to\nthe particular day of the week. The church of Rome does not appear to\nhave observed it until the latter part of the second century, when, in\nthe time of _Victor_, bishop of Rome, it seems that it was observed by\nthe Roman and western churches. _Victor_ insisted upon the fast being\nclosed on the first day of the week, on whatever day it might\ncommence; and he claimed the right, as bishop of Rome, to control all\nthe churches in this matter. \"Hence,\" says _Eusebius_, \"there were\nsynods and convocations of the bishops on this question, and all (i.\ne. the western bishops) unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree,\nwhich they communicated to all the churches in all places, that the\nmystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated on no other\nday than the Lord's day, and that on this day alone we should observe\nthe close of the paschal feasts.\" The bishops of Asia, however,\npersisted for a considerable time in observing the custom handed down\nto them by apostolic tradition, until, either by the threats of\nexcommunication which were made, or by a desire for peace, they were\ninduced partially to adopt the custom of the western churches. This\nchange was made, as we are told, \"partly in honor of the day, and\npartly to express some difference between Jews and Christians.\" But\nthe question does not appear to have been fully settled; for we find\n_Constantine_, in an epistle to the churches, urging them to\nuniformity in the day of the celebration, wherein, after a strong\ninvective against the practice of the Jews, he says, \"For we have\nlearned another way from our Saviour, which we may follow. It is\nindeed most absurd that they should have occasion of insolent boasting\non account of our not being able to observe these things in any manner\nunless by the aid of their instruction.\" \"Wherefore, let us have\nnothing in common with that most odious brood of the Jews.\" By this\ncontest an important point was gained for the first day, although it\nwas but an annual celebration. The Sabbath, however, does not appear\nto have been laid aside in any place, but continued to be the\nprincipal day of religious worship throughout the whole Christian\nchurch.\n\nAt what time the first day began to be observed weekly, we have no\nparticular account; but from the favor it received from the bishops of\nRome, and some of the Christian fathers, at the close of the third and\nbeginning of the fourth century, we suppose it had then become a\npractice in Rome and some of the western churches.\n\nThis brings us to near the close of the third century. And here it\nought to be noted, that Lord's day, or Sunday, was not the only\nholy-day of the Church during these three centuries. _Origen_ (as\nquoted by Dr. Peter Heylyn in his History of the Sabbath) names the\n_Good Friday_ as we call it now, the _Parasceve_ as he calls it there;\nthe feasts of _Easter_ and of _Pentecost_. And anciently, not only the\nday which is now called _Whitsunday_ or _Pentecost_, but all the fifty\ndays from Easter forward, were accounted holy, and solemnized with no\nless observance than the Sundays were. Of the day of the _Ascension_,\nor _Holy Thursday_, it may likewise be said, that soon after, it came\nto be more highly esteemed of than all the rest. Such was the\nestimation in which the Lord's day was held. It was on a level with\nthose other holy days which are now disregarded by the body of the\nProtestant Church. It is to be remembered, farther, that the term\nSabbath was applied exclusively to the seventh day of the week, or\nSaturday. Indeed, wherever, for a thousand years and upwards, we meet\nthe word _Sabbatum_ in any writer, of what name soever, it must be\nunderstood of no day but Saturday.\n\n\nThe Sabbath from the time of Constantine to the Reformation.\n\nWe have seen how the matter stood until the commencement of\nConstantine's career. The Sabbath was generally observed, while the\nLord's day was regarded as a festival of no greater importance or\nauthority than Good Friday or Holy Thursday. No text of Scripture, or\nedict of emperor, or decree of council, could be produced in its\nfavor. But from this time forth may be found emperors and councils\ncombining to give importance to the Lord's day and to oppose the\nSabbath.\n\nAn important change in the regard paid to the first day was produced\nsoon after the accession of _Constantine_, the first Christian\nemperor, in the early part of the fourth century. When he became\nmaster of Rome, he soon gave himself up to the guidance of the\nChristian clergy. According to Jones' Church History, \"He built places\nof public worship; he encouraged the meeting of synods and bishops;\nhonored them with his presence, and employed himself continually in\naggrandizing the church. He was scrupulously attentive to the\nreligious rites and ceremonies which were prescribed to him by the\nclergy. He fasted, observed the feasts in commemoration of the\nmartyrs, and devoutly watched the whole night on the vigils of the\nsaints,\" and showed great anxiety for uniformity in the doctrines and\nobservances of religion in the church. He was, therefore, exactly\nsuited to the wishes of the Roman bishop and clergy, in establishing,\nby his imperial authority, what they had no Scripture to support, and\nwhat their influence had hitherto been insufficient to effect, viz. a\nuniformity in the celebration of Easter and the first day. In 321,\n_Constantine_ first published his edicts enjoining upon his subjects\nthese superstitious celebrations.\n\n_Eusebius_, in his Life of Constantine, says: \"He appointed as a\nsuitable time for prayers the Dominical day, which then was an\nespecial day, and now is undoubtedly the very first. His body guard\nobserved the day, and offered on it prayers written by the Emperor.\nThe happy prince endeavored to persuade all to do this, and by degrees\nto lead all to the worship of God; wherefore he determined that those\nobeying Roman power should abstain from every work upon the days named\nafter the Saviour, that they should venerate also the day before the\nSabbath, in memory, as seems to me, of the events occurring on those\ndays to our common Saviour.\" He says again, \"An edict also, by the\nwill and pleasure of the Emperor, was transmitted to the Prefects of\nthe provinces, that they thenceforth should venerate the Dominical\nday; that they should honor the days consecrated to the martyrs, and\nshould celebrate the solemnities of the festivals in the churches, all\nwhich was done according to the will of the Emperor.\" And, as quoted\nby _Lucius_, he says, that he admonished his subjects likewise that\nthose days which were _Sabbaths_ should be honored or worshiped.\n\n_Sozomen_, in his Ecclesiastical History, b. 1, c. 8, says, \"He\n(Constantine) also made a law that on the Dominical day, which the\nHebrews call the first day of the week, the Greeks the day of the Sun,\nand also on the day of Venus, (i. e. Friday,) judgments should not be\ngiven, or other business transacted, but that all should worship God\nwith prayer and supplications, and venerate the Dominical day, as on\nit Christ rose from the dead, and the day of Venus, as the day on\nwhich he was fixed to the cross.\"\n\n_Dr. Chambers_ says, \"It was Constantine the Great who first made a\nlaw for the observance of Sunday, and who, according to Eusebius,\nappointed that it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman\nempire. Before him, and even in his time, they observed the Jewish\nSabbath as well as Sunday, both to satisfy the law of Moses, and to\nimitate the Apostles, who used to meet together on the first day.\" He\nadds, \"Indeed, some are of opinion that the Lord's day mentioned in\nthe Apocalypse is our Sunday, which they will have to have been so\nearly instituted.\" By Constantine's laws, made in 321, it was decreed\nthat for the future the Sunday should be kept a day of rest in all\ncities and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their\nwork. In 538, the Council of Orleans prohibited this country labor.\n\nTo give the more solemnity to the first day of the week, (as we learn\nfrom Lucius' Ecclesiastical History,) _Sylvester_, who was bishop of\nRome while Constantine was Emperor, changed the name of Sunday, giving\nit the more imposing title of _Lord's day_.\n\nIt cannot be doubted, that the laws of _Constantine_ did much to make\nthe first day conspicuous throughout the empire, as all public\nbusiness was forbidden upon it. They changed its character from a\nspecial day, in which, as a weekly festival, all kinds of business and\nlabor were performed in city and country, to be, as _Eusebius_ says,\n_the very first_. This imperial favor for the first day operated\nagainst all who conscientiously regarded the Sabbath from respect to\nthe fourth commandment, in obedience to which the seventh day had\nalways been observed; and if it had produced a general abandonment of\nits observance, it would not have been very surprising, considering\nthe influence of court example, and the general ignorance and darkness\nof the age. This, however, does not appear to have been the case. The\nSabbath was still extensively observed; and to counteract it the\nCouncil of _Laodicea_, about A. D. 350, passed a decree saying, \"It is\nnot proper for Christians to Judaize, and to cease from labor on the\nSabbath, but they ought to work on that day, and put especial honor\nupon the Lord's day, as Christians. If any be found Judaizing, let him\nbe anathematized.\"\n\nBut this did not produce any material change, for _Socrates_, a writer\nof the fifth century, who resided at Constantinople, makes the\nfollowing remarks upon the celebration of the Sabbath at the time he\nwrote, A. D. 440. He says, \"There are various customs concerning\nassembling; for though all the churches throughout the whole world\ncelebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath day, yet the\nAlexandrians and the Romans, from an ancient tradition, refuse to do\nthis; but the Egyptians who are in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and\nthose inhabiting Thebais, indeed have assemblies on the Sabbath, but\ndo not participate in the mysteries, as is the custom of the\nChristians. At C\u00e6sarea, Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, on the Sabbath and\nDominical day, at twilight, with lighted lamps, the presbyters and\nbishops interpret the Scriptures. At Rome they fast every Sabbath.\"\n\nThis account of the manner of celebrating the Sabbath in the fifth\ncentury, is corroborated by _Sozomen_, in his Ecclesiastical History,\nb. 7, c. 9. He says, \"At Constantinople, and almost among all, the\nChristians assembled upon the Sabbath, and also upon the first day of\nthe week, excepting at Rome and Alexandria; the ecclesiastical\nassemblies at Rome were not upon the Sabbath, as in almost all other\nchurches of the rest of the world; and in many cities and villages in\nEgypt, they used to commune in the evening of the Sabbath, on which\nday there were public assemblies.\"\n\nIn regard to fasting on the Sabbath at Rome, referred to by Socrates,\nit ought to be said, that from the earliest times to the fourth\ncentury, the practice had been to observe the Sabbath as a holiday.\nBut the Church of Rome, in its opposition to the Jews, made it a fast\nday, that the separation might be marked and strong. In the eastern\nchurches they never fasted upon the Sabbath, excepting one Sabbath in\nthe year, which was the day before the Passover. But in the western\nchurches they celebrated a fast every week. It was in reference to\nthis that _Ambrose_ said, \"When I come to Rome, I fast upon the\nSabbath; when I am here, I do not fast.\" _Augustine_ also said\nconcerning this, \"If they say it is sinful to fast on the Sabbath,\nthen they would condemn the Roman Church, and many places near to and\nfar from it. And if they should think it a sin not to fast on the\nSabbath, then they would blame many eastern churches, and the far\ngreater part of the world.\" This Sabbath fasting was opposed by the\neastern church; and in the sixth general council, held at\nConstantinople, it was commanded that the Sabbath and Dominical days\nbe kept as festivals, and that no one fast or mourn upon them. The\npractice of fasting, therefore, was chiefly in the western churches,\nabout Rome.\n\nIt is perhaps difficult to determine exactly the relative importance\nattached to the seventh and first days of the week at this time.\nSufficient may be found, however, to assure us, that the Sabbath was\nobserved, and that no one regarded Sunday as having taken its place.\nThis is shown by the provision of the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 365,\nthat the Gospels should be read on that day. It is shown by the action\nof a Council in 517, (mentioned in _Robinson's History of Baptism_,)\nwhich regulated and enforced the observance of the Sabbath. It is\nshown by the expostulation of _Gregory of Nyssa_, \"How can you look\nupon the Lord's day, if you neglect the Sabbath? Do you not know that\nthey are sisters, and that in despising the one you affront the\nother?\" And as sisters we find them hand in hand in the ecclesiastical\ncanons. Penalties were inflicted by the council; both of Laodicea and\nTrullo, on clergymen who did not observe both days as festivals.\n\nHow the first day of the week, or Lord's day, was observed in the\nearly part of the fifth century, we may learn from the words of _St.\nJerome_. In a funeral oration for the Lady _Paula_, he says: \"She,\nwith all her virgins and widows who lived at Bethlehem in a cloister\nwith her, upon the Lord's day, repaired duly to the church, or house\nof God, which was nigh to her cell; and after her return from thence\nto her own lodgings, she herself and all her company _fell to work_,\nand they all performed their task, which was the making of clothes and\ngarments for themselves and for others, as they were appointed.\"\n\n_St. Chrysostom_, patriarch of Constantinople, \"recommended to his\naudience, after impressing upon themselves and their families what\nthey had heard on the Lord's day, to return to their daily employments\nand trades.\"\n\n_Dr. Francis White_, Lord Bishop of Ely, speaking of this matter,\nsays, \"The Catholic Church, for more than six hundred years after\nChrist, permitted labor, and gave license to many Christian people to\nwork upon the Lord's day, at such hours as they were not commanded to\nbe present at the public service by the precepts of the church.\"\n\nIn the sixth century efforts were made to prevent this labor. The\nfollowing promulgation of a synod held by command of King _Junthran_,\nof Burgundy, will show the condition of things, and the means used to\nimprove it; \"We see the Christian people, in an unadvised manner,\ndeliver to contempt the Dominical day, and, as in other days, indulge\non continual labor.\" Therefore they determined to teach the people\nsubject to them to keep the Dominical day, which, if not observed by\nthe lawyer, he should irreparably lose his cause, and if a countryman\nor servant did not keep it, he should be beaten with heavier blows of\ncudgels. The council of Orleans, held 538, prohibited the country\nlabor on Sunday which Constantine by his laws permitted. According to\nChambers, this council also declared, \"that to hold it unlawful to\ntravel with horses, cattle, and carriages, to prepare food, or to do\nany thing necessary to the cleanliness and decency of houses or\npersons, savors more of Judaism than Christianity.\" According to\nLucius, in another council held in Narbonne, in France, in the seventh\ncentury, they also forbid this country work.\n\nEarly in the seventh century, in the time of Pope _Gregory I._, the\nsubject of the Sabbath attracted considerable attention. There was one\nclass of persons who declared, \"that it was not lawful to do any\nmanner of work upon the Saturday, or the old Sabbath; another, that no\nman ought to bathe himself on the Lord's day, or their new Sabbath.\"\nAgainst both of these doctrines Pope _Gregory_ wrote a letter to the\nRoman citizens. _Baronius_, in his Councils, says, \"This year (603) at\nRome, St. Gregory, the Pope, corrected that error which some preached,\nby Jewish superstition, or the Grecian custom, that it was a duty to\nworship on the Sabbath, as likewise upon the Dominical day;\" and he\ncalls such preachers the preachers of Antichrist.\n\nNearly the same doctrine was preached again in the time of _Gregory\nVII._, A. D. 1074, about five hundred years after what we are now\nspeaking of. This is sufficient to show that the Sabbath was kept\nuntil those times of decline which introduced so many errors in faith\nand practice. Indeed, it is sufficient to show, that wherever the\nsubject has been under discussion, the Sabbath has found its\nadvocates, both in _theory_ and in _practice_.\n\nAccording to _Lucius_, Pope _Urban II._, in the eleventh century,\ndedicated the Sabbath to the Virgin Mary, with a mass. _Binius_ says,\n\"Pope _Innocent I._ constituted a fast on the Sabbath day, which seems\nto be the first constitution of that fast; but dedicating the Sabbath\nto the Virgin Mary was by _Urban II._, in the latter part of the\neleventh century.\" About this time we find _Esychius_ teaching the\ndoctrine that the precept for the observance of the Sabbath is not one\nof the commandments, because it is not at all times to be observed\naccording to the letter; and _Thomas Aquinas_, another Romish\necclesiastic, saying, \"that it seems to be inconvenient that the\nprecept for observing the Sabbath should be put among the precepts of\nthe Decalogue, if it do not at all belong to it; that the precept,\n'_Thou shall not make a graven image_,' and the precept for _observing\nthe Sabbath_, are ceremonial.\"\n\nThe observance of the first day was not so early in England and in\nScotland as in most other parts of the Roman Empire. According to\n_Heylyn_, there were Christian societies established in Scotland as\nearly as A. D. 435; and it is supposed that the gospel was preached in\nEngland in the first century by St. Paul, For many ages after\nChristianity was received in those kingdoms, they paid no respect to\nthe first day. _Binius_, a Catholic writer, in the second volume of\nhis works, gives some account of the bringing into use of the\nDominical day [Sunday] in Scotland, as late as A. D. 1203. \"This\nyear,\" he says, \"a council was held in Scotland concerning the\nintroduction of the Lord's day, which council was held in 1203, in the\ntime of Pope _Innocent III._,\" and he quotes as his authority Roger\nHoveden, Matth. Paris, and Lucius' Eccl. Hist. He says, \"By this\ncouncil it was enacted that it should be holy time from the twelfth\nhour on Saturday noon until Monday.\"\n\n_Boethus_ (de Scottis, p. 344) says, \"In 1203, _William_, king of\nScotland, called a council of the principal of his kingdom, by which\nit was decreed, that Saturday, from the twelfth hour at noon, should\nbe holy, that they should do no profane work, and this they should\nobserve until Monday.\"\n\n_Binius_ says that in 1201 _Eustachius_, Abbot of Flay, came to\nEngland, and therein preached from city to city, and from place to\nplace. He prohibited using markets on Dominical days; and for this he\nprofessed to have a special command from heaven. The history of this\nsingular document, entitled, _A holy Command of the Dominical Day_,\nthe pious Abbot stated to be this: \"It came from Heaven to Jerusalem,\nand was found on St. Simeon's tomb in Golgotha. And the Lord commanded\nthis epistle, which for three days and three nights men looked upon,\nand falling to the earth, prayed for God's mercy. And after the third\nhour, the patriarch stood up; and Akarias the archbishop stretched out\nhis mitre, and they took the holy epistle of God and found it thus\nwritten.\"\n\n [We give some extracts from this epistle, partly as a matter of\n curiosity, and partly to show the credulity of our ancestors, and the\n means by which they were awed into what was to them a new religious\n observance.]\n\n \"I, the Lord, who commanded you that ye should observe the Dominical\n day, and ye have not kept it, and ye have not repented of your sins,\n as I said by my gospel, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word\n shall not pass away; I have caused repentance unto life to be\n preached unto you, and ye have not believed; I sent pagans against\n you, who shed your blood, yet ye believed not; and because ye kept\n not the Dominical day, for a few days ye had famine; but I soon gave\n you plenty, and afterwards ye did worse; I will again, that none from\n the ninth hour of the Sabbath until the rising of the sun on Monday,\n do work any thing unless what is good, which if any do, let him amend\n by repentance; and if ye be not obedient to this command, amen, I say\n unto you, and I swear unto you by my seat, and throne, and cherubim,\n who keep my holy seat, because I will not change any thing by another\n epistle; but I will open the heavens, and for rain I will rain upon\n you stones, and logs of wood, and hot water by night, and none may be\n able to prevent, but that I may destroy all wicked men. This I say\n unto you, ye shall die the death, because of the Dominical holy day\n and other festivals of my saints which ye have not kept. I will send\n unto you beasts having the heads of lions, the hair of women, and\n tails of camels; and they shall be so hunger-starved that they shall\n devour your flesh, and ye shall desire to flee to the sepulchres of\n the dead, and hide you for fear of the beasts; and I will take away\n the light of the sun from your eyes; and I will send upon you\n darkness, that without seeing ye may kill one another; and I will\n take away my face from you, and will not show you mercy; for I will\n burn the bodies and hearts of all who keep not the Dominical holy\n day. Hear my voice, lest ye perish in the land because of the\n Dominical holy day. Now know ye, that ye are safe by the prayers of\n my most holy mother Mary, and of my holy angels who daily pray for\n you. I gave you the law from Mount Sinai, which ye have not kept. For\n you I was born into the world, and my festivals ye have not known;\n the Dominical day of my resurrection ye have not kept; I swear to you\n by my right hand, unless ye keep the Dominical day and the festivals\n of my saints, I will send pagans to kill you.\"\n\nProvided with this new command from heaven, \"_Eustachius_ preached in\nvarious parts of England against the desecration of the Dominical day,\nand other festivals; and gave the people absolution upon condition\nthat they hereafter reverence the Dominical day, and the festivals of\nthe saints.\" And the people vowed to God, that thereafter they would\nneither buy nor sell any thing but food on Sunday.\n\n\"Then,\" says _Binius_, \"the enemy of man, envying the admonitions of\nthis holy man, put it into the heart of the king and nobility of\nEngland, to command that all who should keep the aforesaid traditions,\nand chiefly all who had cast down the markets for things vendible upon\nthe Dominical day, should be brought to the king's court to make\nsatisfaction about observing the Dominical day.\"\n\nBinius relates many miraculous things that occurred on the Sabbath to\nthose that labored after the ninth hour (i. e. after three o'clock in\nthe afternoon) of the seventh day, or Saturday. He says, that upon a\ncertain Sabbath, after the ninth hour, a carpenter, for making a\nwooden pin, was struck with the palsy; and a woman, for knitting on\nthe Sabbath, after the ninth hour, was also struck with the palsy. A\nman baked bread, and when he broke it to eat, blood came out. Another,\ngrinding corn, blood came in a great stream instead of meal, while the\nwheel of his mill stood still against a vehement impulse of water.\nHeated ovens refused to bake bread, if heated after the ninth hour of\nthe Sabbath; and dough, left unbaked out of respect to Eustachius' new\ndoctrine, was found on Monday morning well baked without the aid of\nfire. These fables were industriously propagated throughout the\nkingdom; \"yet the people,\" says Binius, \"fearing kingly and human\npower more than divine, returned as a dog to his own vomit, to keep\nmarkets of saleable things upon the Dominical day.\"\n\n_Mr. Bampfield_, in his Enquiry, p. 3, says, \"The king and princes of\nEngland, in 1203, would not agree to change the Sabbath, and keep the\nfirst day, by this authority. This was in the time of _King John_,\nagainst whom the popish clergy had a great pique for not honoring\ntheir prelacy and the monks, by one of whom he was finally poisoned.\"\n\n_Binius_ (Councils, cent. 13) states that King John of England, in\n1208, in the tenth year of his reign, for not submitting to popish\nimpositions upon his prerogatives, was excommunicated by the Pope, and\nhis kingdom interdicted, which occasioned so much trouble at home and\nabroad, that it forced him at last to lay down his crown at the feet\nof Mandulphus, the Pope's agent. After he was thus humbled by that\nexcommunication and interdiction, the king, in the fifteenth year of\nhis reign, by writ, removed the market of the city of Exon from\nSunday, on which it was held, to Monday. The market of Lanceston was\nremoved from the first to the fifth day of the week. In the second and\nthird years of Henry III. many other markets were removed from the\nfirst to other days of the week, which the King at first would not\npermit. He also issued a writ which permitted the removal of markets\nfrom the first day to other days without special license.\n\nThe Parliament of England met on Sundays until the time of Richard\nII., who adjourned it from that to the following day.\n\nIn 1203, according to _Boethus_, \"a council was held in Scotland to\ninaugurate the king, and concerning the feast of the Sabbath; and\nthere came also a legate from the Pope, with a sword and purple hat,\nand indulgences and privileges to the young king. It was also there\ndecreed, that Saturday, from the twelfth hour at noon, should be\nholy.\" The _Magdeburgenses_ say that this Council was about the\nobservance of the Dominical day _newly brought in_, and that they\nordained that it should be holy from the twelfth hour of Saturday even\ntill Monday.\n\n_Binius_ says, \"A synod was held in Oxford, A. D. 1223, by _Stephen_,\nArchbishop of Canterbury, where they determined that the Dominical day\nbe kept with all veneration, and a fast upon the Sabbath.\"\n\nAccording to Bampfield, the first law of England made for the keeping\nof Sunday, was in the time of Edward VI., about 1470. \"Parliament then\npassed an act, by which Sunday and many holy days, the feasts of all\nSaints and of holy Innocents, were established as festivals by law.\nThis provided also, that it should be lawful for husbandmen, laborers,\nfishermen, and all others in harvest, or at any other time of the year\nwhen necessity should require, to labor, ride, fish, or do any other\nkind of work, at their own free will and pleasure, upon any of the\nsaid days.\"\n\nBy such means as these, the observance of the first day was gradually\nforced upon the people wherever they owned allegiance to the Pope as\nhead of the church, and the Sabbath was as gradually brought into\ncontempt and disuse.\n\nThe process by which the change was effected appears to be this: By\nfirst obtaining an annual celebration of the first day at the close of\nthe Passover, in honor of the resurrection; then a partial observance\nof the day weekly, it being generally so observed among the heathen;\nthen obtaining for it the support of civil laws, ecclesiastical canons\nand penalties, and by giving it the title of Lord's day; then by\nrequiring the consecration of the entire day. To abate and ultimately\neradicate all respect for the Sabbath, it was first turned into a\nfast; then it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, resting upon it was\nstigmatized as Judaism and heresy, and the preaching of it was called\nAntichrist; and finally the fourth commandment was pronounced\nceremonial, and was effectually abstracted from the Decalogue. And\nthus, so far as the Roman church was concerned, the point was gained;\nand thus, probably, she performed her part in the fulfillment of the\nprophecy of Daniel, (7:25,) \"He shall think to change TIMES and LAWS;\nand they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the\ndividing of time.\"\n\nThe cause of the Sabbath must also have been seriously affected by the\nrise of the Ottoman Empire in the seventh century, and the success of\nthe Mahometans in conquering the eastern division of the church.\nMahomet formed the plan of establishing a new religion, or, as he\nexpressed it, of replanting the only true and ancient one professed by\nAdam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the prophets; by destroying\nidolatry, and weeding out the corruptions which the later Jews and\nChristians had, as he supposed, introduced. He was equally opposed to\nboth Jews and Christians. To distinguish his disciples from each, he\nselected as their day of weekly celebration the sixth day, or Friday.\nAnd thus, as a writer of the seventeenth century remarks, \"they and\nthe Romanists crucified the Sabbath, as the Jews and the Romans did\nthe Lord of the Sabbath, between two thieves, the sixth and the first\nday of the week.\"\n\nWe have thus traced the history of the Sabbath in the Roman church\ndown to the thirteenth century; and we see that through the whole of\nthis period, the seventh day every where retained the honor of being\ncalled the Sabbath, and that no other day had ever borne that title;\nthat not until the remarkable letter found on St. Simeon's tomb, had\nit been asserted by any one, that the observance of the _first day_,\n_Lord's day_, or _Sunday_, was enjoined by the authority of Jesus or\nhis apostles, nor was any example of theirs plead in its favor. Even\nthen it was not pretended that the Scriptures required its observance.\n\nThere are some traces of the Sabbath among those Christians who\nseparated from the Catholic communion, or were never embraced in it.\nThe Greek church separated from them about the middle of the eleventh\ncentury, and had a larger extent of empire than the papists. According\nto _Brerewood's Enquiries_, p. 128, this church solemnized Saturday\nfestivals, and forbade as unlawful to fast on any Saturday except in\nLent, retaining the custom followed before their separation. The same\nauthor states that the Syrian Christians, who composed a numerous body\nin the East, celebrated divine worship solemnly on both the Sabbath\nand first day, continuing the custom of the Roman church at the time\nthey separated from that community. _Sandy's Travels_, p. 173, speak\nof a Christian empire in Ethiopia that celebrate both Saturday and\nSunday, \"that they have divers errors and many ancient truths.\" The\nAbyssinian Christians, another numerous body, are represented as being\nsimilar in some respects to the Papists; and _Purchase_ speaks of them\nas \"subject to Peter and Paul, and especially to Christ,\" and as\nobserving the Saturday Sabbath. They are also mentioned by\n_Brerewood_. _Mosheim_ mentions a sect of Christians in the twelfth\ncentury, in Lombardy, called _Pasaginians_, charged with circumcising\ntheir followers, and keeping the Jewish Sabbath. _Mr. Benedict_\nconsiders the account of their practicing the bloody rite a slander\ncharged on them on account of their keeping the Jewish Sabbath.\n_Binius_ says that in 1555 there were Christians in Rome who kept the\nSabbath, and were therefore called _Sabbatarii_, and they are\nrepresented as differing in other respects from the Romanists. Many of\nthe Armenian Christians are believed to observe the ancient Sabbath.\n_Dr. Buchanan_, in his Researches, when speaking of those of them who\nare settled in the East Indies, says, \"Their doctrines are, as far as\nthe author knows, the doctrines of the Bible. Besides this, they\nmaintain the solemn observation of Christian worship throughout our\nempire on the seventh day.\"\n\nProbably there has not existed a class of Christians since the times\nof the Apostles, who could more justly claim to be Apostolic than the\n_Waldenses_, formerly a numerous people living in the valleys of\nPiedmont; whither they retired, says Burnside, on the promulgation of\nConstantine's laws for the observance of the first day, in the fourth\ncentury; and where they remained, according to Scaliger and Brerewood,\nin the time of Elizabeth of England, in the latter part of the\nsixteenth century. They adhered firmly to the apostolic faith, and\nsuffered severe persecutions from the Catholics. _Robinson_, in his\n_History of Baptism_, says, \"They were called _Sabbati_ and\n_Sabbatati_, so named from the Hebrew word _Sabbath_, because they\nkept the _Saturday_ for the Lord's day.\" They were also called\n_Insabbatati_, because they rejected all the festivals, or Sabbaths,\nin the low Latin sense of the word. The account the Papists gave of\ntheir sentiments in 1250, was briefly this: That they declared\nthemselves to be the apostolic successors, and to have apostolic\nauthority; that they held the church of Rome to be the 'whore of\nBabylon;' that none of the ordinances of the church which have been\nintroduced since Christ's ascension ought to be observed; that baptism\nis of no advantage to infants, because they cannot actually believe.\nThey reject the sacrament of confirmation, but instead of that their\nteachers lay their hands upon their disciples. _Jones_, in his Church\nHistory, says that because they would not observe _saints' days_, they\nwere falsely supposed to neglect the Sabbath also. Another of their\nenemies, an Inquisitor of Rome, charged them with despising all the\nfeasts of Christ and his saints. Another, a Commissioner of Charles\nXII. of France, reported to him, \"that he found among them none of the\nceremonies, images, or signs of the Romish church, much less the\ncrimes with which they were charged; on the contrary, they kept the\nSabbath day, observed the ordinance of baptism according to the\nprimitive church, and instructed their children in the articles of the\nChristian faith and commandments of God.\"\n\n\nThe Sabbath since the Reformation.\n\nWith the commencement of the Reformation, a new spirit of religious\ninquiry was awakened. Nearly every item of Christian practice was\nbrought under review, and not dismissed until either approved or\nrejected. Among the subjects for discussion we find the Sabbath early\nintroduced and thoroughly examined. There were three leading views\nthen maintained by different classes of Reformers, which deserve\nparticular notice.\n\n1. One class of Reformers there was, who, dwelling alone on the\nsufficiency of faith, and the freeness of the Gospel, trembled at the\nthought of imposing rules upon men, and seemed to fear the term _law_.\nThese declared, that the law of the Sabbath was abolished; that Sunday\nwas no Sabbath, only a festival of the church, which had been\nappointed and might be altered at her pleasure. That we may not be\nthought in error here, as well as to give a full understanding of the\nopinions of that time, we will present the assertions of some of these\nmen.\n\n_Bishop Cranmer's Catechism_, A. D. 1548, says: \"The Jews were\ncommanded in the Old Testament to keep the Sabbath-day, and they\nobserved it every seventh day, called the Sabbath, or Saturday; but we\nChristian men are not bound to such commandments in Moses' law, and\ntherefore we now keep no more the Sabbath, or Saturday, as the Jews\ndid, but we observe the Sunday, and some other days, _as the\nmagistrates do judge convenient_.\"\n\n_William Tindal_ says, in his answer to More, chap. 25: \"We be lords\nover the Sabbath, and may change it into Monday, or any other day, as\nwe see need; or may make every tenth day holy-day, only if we see\ncause why; we may make two every week, if it were expedient, and one\nnot enough to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change\nit from the Saturday, other than to _put a difference between us and\nthe Jews_, and lest we should become servants to the day after their\nsuperstition.\"\n\n_Bullinger_, on Rev. 1:10, says: \"Christian churches entertained the\nLord's day, not upon any commandment from God, but according to their\nfree choice.\"\n\n_Melancthon_ says: \"The Lord's day, from the Apostles' age, hath been\na solemn day; notwithstanding, we find not the same commanded by any\napostolic law; but it is collected from hence that the observance\nthereof was free, because Epiphanius and St. Augustine testify that on\nthe fourth and the sixth days of the week church assemblies were held,\nas well as upon the Lord's day.\"\n\n_The Augustan Confession_, drawn up by Melancthon, and approved by\nLuther, says: \"We teach that traditions are not to be condemned which\nhave a religious end,... namely, traditions concerning holy-days, the\nLord's day, the feast of the nativity, easter, &c.\"\n\nThese passages distinctly do away with the Sabbath, and place the\nobservance of the Lord's day on the ground of human authority. In the\nbooks of some early authors who adopted those views, may be found\nfrequent references to a difficulty which drove them to deny the\nperpetuity of the Sabbath. Bishop _White_, in 1635, says: \"If the\nfourth commandment, concerning the keeping of the seventh day, is\nmoral and perpetual, then it is not such in respect to the first and\neighth day; for this precept requireth the observance of that one day\nonly which it specifieth in that commandment.\" In speaking of the\nLord's day, he says: \"Every day of the week and of the year is the\nLord's; and the Sunday is no more the Lord's by the law of the fourth\ncommandment, than the Friday, for the Lord's day of that fourth\ncommandment is the Saturday.\"\n\nFrom each of these quotations, it appears to have been felt to be\ninconsistent to admit the perpetuity of the Sabbath, without keeping\nthe seventh day. But to come back to this ancient day, and keep it in\ncompany with Jews, seemed too great a change. Hence the abrogation of\nthe institution was asserted, as the easiest way of escaping from the\ndilemma. John Milton, speaking of this difficulty, says: \"If we under\nthe Gospel are to regulate the time of our public worship by the\nprescriptions of the Decalogue, it will surely be far safer to observe\n_the seventh day_, according to the express command of God, than, on\nthe authority of mere human conjecture, to adopt the _first_.\"\n\nAnother influence which led to the rejection of the Sabbath by these\nmen, was the view of it which was held by the Romish Church. When the\nleaders of the Reformation separated from that church, it was claimed\nthat all her festival days, including Sundays, were holier than other\ndays, not only in relation to the use made of them, but to a natural\nand _inherent holiness_ wherewith they thought them to be invested. In\naddition to this, many and hurtful restraints had been imposed upon\nthe consciences of God's people, until these were days of\n_punishment_, rather than of holy pleasure and profit. Seeing these\ndays perverted from their real design, and made the means of\nstrengthening papal power, it is not surprising that they were\ndiscarded together. Anxious to escape one error, they fell into\nanother equally dangerous.\n\n2. But another class of Reformers, (probably somewhat fearful of the\nconsequences of those lax notions to which we have just referred,)\nconsidering that the Sabbath was given in Paradise, rehearsed at\nSinai, and placed among the precepts of the Decalogue, declared that\nit must be moral in its nature, and perpetually binding. But having\nadmitted its perpetuity, and having rested its claims upon the fourth\ncommandment, the way of explaining and enforcing the change of the day\npresented an obstacle to the spread of this view. How this was\ntreated, let their own words answer. _Dr. Bound_, in 1595, says, \"The\nfourth commandment is simply and perpetually moral, and not ceremonial\nin whole or in part.\" _Richard Byfield_, 1630, says, \"The fourth\ncommandment is part of the law of nature, and thus part of the image\nof God, and is no more capable of a ceremony to be in it than God is.\"\nAfterwards he says, \"The institution of the Lord's day is clearly in\nthe work of Christ's resurrection, as the institution of the seventh\nday was in the work of finishing the creation.\" \"The resurrection\napplieth and determineth the Sabbath of the fourth commandment to the\nLord's day.\" Such was the course of reasoning adopted by this class of\npersons. Having established the morality and perpetuity of the Sabbath\nby means of Scripture, and brought the sanctions of the Word of God to\nsustain them, they apply all this to the support of an institution,\nthe existence and time of keeping which is inferred from Christ's\nresurrection. It is easy to see what must have been the consequence.\n\n3. There was another class among the disputants about the Sabbath, who\nendeavored, by strict adherence to the Scriptures, to escape the\ndifficulties and inconsistencies into which others had been led. They\ncontended for the early institution of the Sabbath, for its morality\nand perpetuity as inferred from its being placed in the Decalogue, and\nfor _the seventh day of the week_ as an essential and necessary part\nof the commandment. _Theophilus Brabourne_, in 1628, says: \"1. The\nfourth commandment of the Decalogue is a divine precept, simply and\nentirely moral, containing nothing legally ceremonial, in whole or in\npart, and therefore the weekly observation thereof ought to be\nperpetual, and to continue in full force and virtue to the world's\nend. 2. The Saturday, or seventh day of the week, ought to be an\neverlasting holy-day in the Christian church, and the religious\nobservation of this day obligeth Christians under the Gospel, as it\ndid the Jews before the coming of Christ. 3. The Sunday, or Lord's\nday, is an ordinary working day; and it is superstition and\nwill-worship to make the same the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.\"\nThese opinions were vindicated by Brabourne in two volumes which\nappeared, one in 1628, and the other in 1632. They have never been\nanswered to the satisfaction of many candid mind. It is true, an\nanswer has been attempted. But this answer, laboring as it did mainly\nto prove that such doctrine \"is repugnant to the public sentence of\nthe Church of England, and to the sentence of divines who lived at the\nbeginning of the Reformation,\" could not satisfy one who believed the\nScriptures to be a sufficient rule of faith and practice. To these\nvolumes might be added others, which appeared soon after, and to the\nresults of which, living witnesses have testified from that day to\nthis.\n\nIt was while the discussion just referred to was yet in progress, that\nKing James, in 1618, published his Book of Sports for Sunday, in which\nis set forth, that \"by the preciseness of some magistrates and\nministers in several places in this kingdom, in hindering people from\ntheir recreations on the Sunday, the papists in this realm being\nthereby persuaded that no honest mirth or recreation was tolerable in\nour religion,\" wherefore, it pleased his majesty to set out his\ndeclaration, \"that for his good people's lawful recreation, his\npleasure was, that after the end of divine service, they should not be\ndisturbed, letted, or discouraged, from any lawful recreation, such as\ndancing, either men or women, archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or\nany other such harmless recreations; nor from having of May-games,\nWhitsun-ales, or Morrice-dances, and setting up of May-poles, or other\nsports therewith used; so as the same be had in due and convenient\ntime, without impediment or let of divine service.\" This book was\ndesigned to counteract what was then called the Puritan notion, and\nmaybe regarded as expressing the opinion of the English Church at that\ntime in regard to the sacredness of the day. It was re-published in\n1636, by Charles, with how much real effect upon the practices of his\nsubjects it is not easy to determine.\n\nIt is evident that a re\u00e4ction in favor of the sabbatic institution had\nalready commenced; and the earnestness of Puritanism on this subject,\njoined to the influence of Sabbatarianism, affected almost the whole\nbody of the English Church. To Puritanism and Sabbatarianism belong\nthe credit of having preserved to that country a regard for the day of\nrest, which raises it indefinitely above many other Protestant\ncountries. Had Scriptural ground been taken, who can estimate the\nresults which would have followed?\n\nIn Germany, according to Ross' \"Picture of all Religions,\" observers\nof the seventh-day as the Sabbath were common in the sixteenth\ncentury, their numbers being such as to lead to organization, and\nattract attention. A number of these formed a church, and emigrated to\nAmerica in the early settlement of the country. There were\nSabbath-keepers in Transylvania, about the same time, among whom was\n_Francis Davidis_, first chaplain to the Court of Sigismund, the\nprince of that kingdom, and afterwards superintendent of all the\nTransylvanian churches. In France, also, there were Christians of this\nclass, among whom was _M. de la Roque_, who wrote in defense of the\nSabbath, against Bossuet, the Catholic Bishop of Meaux. But it is\ndifficult to determine to what extent this day was observed in those\ncountries.\n\nIn England we find Sabbath-keepers very early. _Dr. Chambers_ says,\n\"They arose in England in the sixteenth century;\" from which we\nunderstand that they then became a distinct denomination in that\nkingdom. They increased considerably in the seventeenth century; and\nwe find that towards the close of that century there were eleven\nflourishing churches in different parts of that country. Among those\nwho held this view were some men of distinction. Theophilus Brabourne\nwas called before the Court of High Commission, in 1632, for having\nwritten and published books vindicating the claims of the seventh day.\nOne Traske was about the same time examined in the Starr Chamber,\nwhere a long discussion on the subject seems to have been held. Nearly\nthirty years after this, John James, preacher to a Sabbath-keeping\ncongregation in the east of London, was executed in a barbarous\nmanner, upon a variety of charges, among which was his keeping of the\nSabbath. Twenty years later still, Francis Bampfield died in Newgate,\na martyr to non-conformity--especially as one who could not conform in\nthe matter of the Sabbath. It is needless to mention more names, or to\nspeak particularly of Edward, Joseph, Dr. Joseph, and Dr. Samuel\nStennett, John Maulden, Robert Cornthwaite, and others, who have\nwritten and suffered in proof of their attachment to this truth.\n\nBut the Sabbath met with great opposition in England, being assailed,\nboth from the pulpit and the press, by those who were attached to the\nestablished church. Many men of learning and talent engaged in the\ndiscussion, on both sides of the question. It is evident that the\nopposers of reform felt the difficulty of defending themselves against\nthe strength of talent and scripture brought to bear in favor of the\nseventh day. The civil powers attempted to check the progress of all\nDissenters by means of the famous _Conventicle Act_. By that law,\npassed in 1664, it was provided, that if any person, above sixteen\nyears of age, was present at any meeting of worship different from the\nChurch of England, where there were five persons more than the\nhousehold, for the first offense he should be imprisoned three months,\nor pay five pounds; for the second, the penalty was doubled; and for\nthe third he should be banished to America, or pay one hundred pounds\nsterling. This act was renewed in 1669, and, in addition to the former\npenalties, made the person preaching liable to pay a fine of twenty\npounds; and the same penalty was imposed upon any person suffering a\nmeeting to be held in his house. Justices of the Peace were empowered\nto enter such houses, and seize such persons; and they were fined one\nhundred pounds if they neglected doing so. These acts were exceedingly\nharrassing to those who observed the Sabbath. Many of their\ndistinguished ministers were taken from their flocks and confined in\nprison, some of whom sunk under their sufferings. These persecutions\nnot only prevented those who kept the Sabbath from assembling, but\ndeterred some who embraced their opinions from uniting with them, and\ndiscouraged others from investigating the subject. At present the\nSabbath is not as extensively observed in England as formerly. But the\nextent of Sabbath-keeping cannot be determined by the number and\nmagnitude of the churches, either there or in other countries. For\nmany persons live in the observance of the seventh day and remain\nmembers of churches which assemble on the first day; and a still\ngreater number acknowledge its correctness, who conform to the more\npopular custom of keeping the first day.\n\nAt what time the Sabbath became the subject of attention in America,\nwe cannot definitely say. The intolerance of the first settlers of New\nEngland was unfavorable to the Sabbath. The poor Christian who may\nhave been banished to this country for its observance could find no\nrefuge among the _Pilgrim Fathers_. The laws of Rhode Island were more\ntolerant than those of some other States, and observers of the Sabbath\nfirst made their appearance at Newport in 1671. The cause of the\nSabbath has gradually gained ground in this country from that period;\nbut it has found much to oppose its progress, even in Rhode Island. It\nwas in opposition to the general practice of Christians, on which\naccount an odium was put upon it, and those who have kept the Sabbath\nhave been reproached with Judaizing, and classed with Jews. Besides\nthis, they have ever been subjected to great inconvenience in their\noccupations, especially in cities and towns.\n\nAt no time does there appear to have been in this country any general\nexcitement on the subject. The observers of Sunday have avoided as far\nas possible its discussion; so that those who have observed the\nSabbath have had but little encouragement, as they have supposed, to\ntry to extend their sentiments. But the propagation of their opinions\nhas not depended exclusively on their efforts. The common English\nversion of the Bible has been found in many instances a sufficient\nmeans of converting men to the truth. Churches observing the Sabbath\nhave been formed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,\nPennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and in most of the\nWestern States, embracing, as is supposed, a population of forty or\nfifty thousand.\n\n\nConclusion.\n\nFrom the foregoing historical sketch, it appears that through the\napostolic age, and for a long time after, the Sabbath was religiously\nobserved by the church of Christ; and that not until the latter part\nof the second century was the first day introduced to religious notice\nas a festival of the resurrection; and then, probably, as an annual\ncelebration at the close of the Passover only. It also appears, that\nit was a work of some hundreds of years to establish the weekly\ncelebration of this day, even in the Romish church; and that this was\nnot done without the aid of ecclesiastical and civil laws and\npenalties--the same instrumentalities used to bring the Sabbath into\ndisrepute in the popular branches of the church. Thus it appears that\nthe Romish clergy, and the princes under their control, have been the\nprincipal actors in bringing about the change from the Sabbath to the\nfirst day of the week.\n\nFor a long time before the Reformation the popular branches of the\nChristian church were literally without a Sabbath. Until after that\nperiod, it is not known that a single passage of Scripture was ever\ncited as authority for the celebration of the first day, even as a\nfestival; the notion that the apostles observed it as a memorial of\nthe resurrection, being of comparatively modern origin. When, however,\nthe Reformers threw off the yoke of the Romish church, and protested\nagainst her corruptions, some of them could no longer be satisfied to\nlet the observance of the first day rest upon her authority. They saw\nthat they must either give it up as a human invention, or find some\nScripture to support it. Hence the numerous theories which have been\ninvented to justify its observance--theories which necessarily\nconflict with each other, as well as with Scripture, and are\naltogether unsatisfactory to inquiring minds.\n\nThe history of this matter shows us, that neither the adoption of the\nfirst day, nor the abandonment of the seventh, took place until the\ncorruptions of the Catholic church in other respects had become so\nnumerous and flagrant, as to drive from her communion many of her most\nconscientious and apostolic members, who still retained the observance\nof the Sabbath. The case of those sects in different ages of the\nchurch who have kept the Sabbath in connection with the first day, and\npracticed other things peculiar to the Romish church, furnishes\nadditional evidence that the observance of the first day was adopted\nwhile the Sabbath was retained, and consequently that the first day\nwas not adopted as a substitute for the Sabbath, which it ultimately\ndisplaced. The permitting of labor on the first day in the earlier\nages of the church, and the canons of Councils and Synods and the\nedicts of Princes to bring about a general conformity in this respect,\ntogether with the slow progress made, even in Catholic countries,\nevince in the strongest manner that it was viewed in no other light,\neven by its warmest advocates, than that of a human institution, and\none that could be enforced by human authority only. As such it was\nlooked upon by enlightened and conscientious Christians in every age,\nwho would not make void a commandment of God through a tradition of\nmen.\n\nIn the light of these facts, we are led to the conclusion of Dr.\nNeander, set forth in his Church History, that \"the festival of Sunday\nwas always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention\nof the Apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far\nfrom them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws\nof the Sabbath to Sunday.\" As a \"_human ordinance_,\" the observance of\nSunday has long been and is now considered by many. While they\nconsider it in this light, it is not to be expected that they will\nrender it that sacred regard which the Sabbath claims, and must have\nin order to our safety and its usefulness.\n\nWhat, then, shall be done? Shall we allow an institution of so much\nimportance to rest upon mere human authority? To such a proposition\nevery friend of the institution ought to say, No. To set it adrift, or\nto attempt to enforce it upon such authority, would be to withdraw\nfrom it the high sanction which it once had, and expose it to certain\ncontempt and neglect. There is but one course dictated by wisdom and\nprudence. If we would save the Sabbath from threatened destruction, we\nmust come back to the law as it was originally given, place the\ninstitution under the care of the Lawgiver, and enforce its claims by\nhis authority. We must join the commandment, \"Remember the Sabbath day\nto keep it holy,\" with the explanation of it, \"The seventh day is the\nSabbath of the Lord thy God,\" and united they shall stand. Let this be\ndone, and we need not fear. The Lord of the Sabbath is pledged for its\nsafety; and he will cause those who \"call the Sabbath a delight, holy\nof the Lord, honorable,\" to rejoice in Him, and ride upon the high\nplaces of the earth.\n\n\n\n\nNo. 5.\n\nA CHRISTIAN CAVEAT\n\nTO THE OLD AND NEW SABBATARIANS.\n\nBY EDWARD FISHER, ESQ.\n\n\n The following article is taken from the fifth edition of a work with\n the above title, printed in London, 1653. The book was written in\n defence of the \"orthodoxal doctrine of the Church of England,\"\n respecting festivals, against the \"Sabbatarian novelties,\" as they\n were called, of the Puritans. While it demolishes the claims set up\n on behalf or _Sunday_ or _Lord's Day_, it fully establishes\n the claims of the _Sabbath_ or _Seventh Day_. And it is\n worthy of note here, that it is not possible to refute any of the\n erroneous views in regard to the Sabbath and Lord's Day, without\n taking positions which necessarily lead to the observation of _the\n Seventh Day_. How much easier it would be to fasten the claims of\n the Sabbatic institution upon the consciences of men, if we were\n satisfied to take the fourth commandment _as it reads_, and\n enforce it by \"_Thus saith the Lord_.\"\n\n\"The third opinion is, of the new Sabbatarians, who dream of a middle\nway betwixt a Jew and a Christian; and this they usually lay down in\ntwo propositions. The first is, _That the Lord's Day, or first day of\nthe week, namely_ Sunday, _may be called_ the Sabbath: the next is,\n_That the observation of the Lord's Day is a moral duty, enjoined by\nGod himself, and declared both by the doctrine and practice of Christ\nand his apostles_. The first appearance of this kind of teachers was\nin the year of our Lord 1595, near the end of the reign of Queen\nElizabeth: and because they are neither able to produce direct\nScripture, nor solid reason for what they say, they labor to support\ntheir conceits by fallacies, falsities and wrestings of God's holy\nword, as upon scanning their proofs will be manifest to the meanest\ncapacity.\n\n\"For their first proposition, they alledge two reasons why the _Lord's\nDay_ may be called _the Sabbath_. One is because the Sabbath signifies\n_a rest_; and therefore the Lord's Day being a _rest_, may be called\nthe Sabbath. But to this we answer, it is false that _the Sabbath_\nsignifies _a rest_; for when by custom of speech a common name is\nrestrained to a particular place, thing, or person, it then becomes a\nproper name, and so losing its community, does signify that only\nparticular, unto which by custom of speech it is applied; as for\ninstance, _the temple_ is a common name, signifying _the Church_; yet\nin London, where by custom of speech this name, _The Temple_, is\nrestrained to an Inns of Court, it is false and absurd to say you were\nat _the Temple_, and mean _the Church of St. Giles_. In like manner\n_the Sabbath_ is a common name, signifying _the rest_; yet in the\nChristian Church, where by custom of speech, according to God's holy\nphrase throughout the Old and New Testament, this name, _the Sabbath_,\nis restrained to the Jewish weekly festival, it is false and absurd to\nspeak of _the Sabbath_, and mean _the Lord's Day_. Their other reason\nwhy the Lord's Day may be called _the Sabbath_, is, because the Lord's\nDay succeeded in the room of the Sabbath. But if this argument be\ngood, then may _baptism_ be called _circumcision_, the _Lord's Supper_\nthe _Passover_, and King _James_ Queen _Elizabeth_.\n\n\"As for the second proposition, wherein they assert the _morality and\ndivine institution of the Lord's Day_, we shall here notice only three\nof their reasons. The first is, because Adam, according to God's\ncommand, kept the Sabbath in the state of innocency.... But what is\nthe sanctification of the Sabbath spoken of by Moses in the second\nchapter of Genesis, to our observing the Lord's Day? That was\nappointed to be kept on _the seventh_ and _last_ day of the week; this\nis kept on _the first_ day of the week: that was the day in which God\n_rested_ from his work of creation; this is the day in which God\n_began_ to create the heavens and the earth: that was our _Saturday_;\nthis is our _Sunday_. Their second proof for the morality of the\nLord's Day, is from the fourth commandment, where they seek to corrupt\nthe very text, and would persuade us that for _the_ seventh day, we\nmust read _a_ seventh day; as if God did not there set apart a certain\nday of the week, but left it to man to keep which of the seven he\npleased. Unto which we answer, that this conceit is not only against\nthe letter of all our translations, but even repugnant to the sense of\nthe commandment; for the words are express that God blessed and\nhallowed the Sabbath day; that Sabbath day was _the seventh_ day; that\nseventh day was _the day in which God rested from his six days' work\nof creation_. Nay, grant it were true (as these men would have) that\nthis special precept does exactly oblige us, and that no particular\nday of the seven was by God appointed to be kept holy, then may we set\napart Monday, or Tuesday, or any other day to God's service, as well\nas Sunday; and so, by their own argument, the Lord's Day is no more\nmoral than any other day of the week. Their third proof is from the\ntitle or name, _Lord's Day_, which (say they) cannot be for any other\nreason, but because it is of the Lord's institution. We answer, this\nis false; for the Lord's Day was not so called because it was\n_instituted by the Lord_, but because it was _dedicated to the Lord_;\nas we commonly say, Saint Mary's Church, or Saint Peter's Church;\nwhich no man did ever imagine were built or founded by Saint Mary or\nSaint Peter.\"\n\n Near the close of his book, after having examined each of the\n positions here referred to, he comes directly to his design, and\n says:--\n\n\"In vain, therefore, it is, and most absurd, for you our opponents to\ncharge us with _befooling and misleading the people_. Your own\n_practice_, your own _doctrines_, shall bear witness betwixt us.\n\n\"You who say one while, that God did not appoint _the_ seventh day,\nthe day on which he rested, to be kept holy, but _a_ seventh day, and\nso one day in seven be observed, no matter which of them; another\nwhile, that by this commandment God enjoins us to keep holy _the first\nday of the week_ on which he _began_ his work of creation--Do you not\n_befool and mislead the people_?\n\n\"You who (forgetting your own doctrine of the fourth commandment) do\nteach, that the keeping holy the first day of the week, or Lord's Day,\nwas appointed and practised by Christ and his apostles, yet cannot\nproduce so much as one _example_ for it, much less a _precept_--Do you\nnot _befool and mislead the people_?\n\n\"You who infer, because St. Paul, and the disciples at Troas, spent\nthe whole night of the first day of the week in praying, preaching,\nand heavenly conference, in regard he was to leave them and depart on\nthe morrow; _therefore_, St. Paul and the disciples at Troas met _that\nnight_ to keep holy _the day past_; _therefore_ the disciples at Troas\nmet _every first day of the week_, to keep that day holy; _therefore_\nthe Church at _Philippi_, the Church in _Cilicia_, and _all_ Christian\nChurches, did then keep holy the first day of the week; _therefore all\nthe apostles_ did constantly keep holy that day; _therefore_ Christ\nand his apostles _appointed the first day of the week_ to be for ever\ncelebrated, instead of the Sabbath--Is not this pitiful logic? Do you\nnot _befool and mislead the people_?\n\n\"You who tell stories of an _old_ Sabbath and a _new_ Sabbath, a\n_Jewish_ Sabbath and a _Christian_ Sabbath, a Sabbath of the _seventh_\nday and a Sabbath of the _first_ day of the week; that so you may\nslily fix the name _Sabbath_ on _the Lord's Day_, and then persuade\nthe simple and ignorant that all those texts of Scripture wherein\nmention is made of _the Sabbath day_, are intended of _the Lord's\nDay_; when indeed to call the Lord's Day _the Sabbath_, is as\nsenseless as to call Sunday _Saturday_, or the _first_ day _the last\nday_ of the week, when throughout the Old and New Testament we have\nnot the least intimation of any other weekly Sabbath, save the old,\nJewish, seventh day Sabbath; when you yourselves confess, that the\nname Lord's Day, is more proper and particular, and less obvious to\nexception, than the name Sabbath; and that the name Sabbath is in\ndignity inferior to both Lord's Day and Sunday--Do you not _befool and\nmislead the people_?\n\n\"You that condemn the yearly observance of Christ's birth-day as\nheathenish, yet acknowledge this feast to be a constitution of the\nancient primitive Church--Do you not _befool and mislead the people_?\n\n\"Take ye heed; these are not small matters; consider well with\nyourselves what it is to stand guilty before God of belying Christ and\nhis apostles, and wilfully wresting the Holy Scriptures. Be advised;\ntake time while time is to repent of those notorious slanders\nwherewith you have aspersed the ancient approved ways of God's\nworship; and let the sincerity of your repentance appear by the speedy\nabandoning of your unchristian practices and principles; lest the\nheavy judgment of seducers, _to wax worse and worse_, fall upon you,\nand God in the end _deliver you up_ to such _strong delusions_, that\nyou _should believe your own lies_.\"\n\n Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,\n No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.\n\n\n\n\nNo. 6.\n\nTWENTY REASONS FOR KEEPING HOLY IN EACH WEEK,\n\nTHE SEVENTH DAY INSTEAD OF THE FIRST DAY.\n\n\n1. Because the Seventh Day was blessed and sanctified for a Sabbath,\nby God, immediately after the creation of the world, as a perpetual\nmemorial of that wonderful work, and of His own resting from it; and\nbecause there is now as much need for man to remember God's creative\nwork, and to enjoy a weekly rest, as ever there was.\n\n2. Because there is evidence that the Seventh Day was observed from\nAdam to Moses, by Noah, Jacob, Joseph, and Job. (See Gen. vii.\u00a04, 10;\nviii.\u00a010, 12; xxix.\u00a027, 28; l.\u00a010; Job. ii.\u00a03.)\n\n3. Because the Seventh Day is a necessary part of the fourth\ncommandment, given at Mount Sinai, graven on stone by the finger of\nGod, and incorporated with the other nine precepts of the Decalogue,\nwhich are admitted to be moral in their nature, and perpetually\nbinding. \"Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.\" \"The Seventh Day\nis the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.\" \"For in six days the Lord made\nheaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the\n_Seventh Day_; _wherefore_ the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day and\nhallowed it.\"\n\n4. Because the Old Testament abounds with declarations of God's\nblessing upon those who keep holy the Seventh Day, and of his\nvengeance upon those who profane it.\n\n5. Because our Lord Jesus Christ enforced the claims of the law to the\nfullest extent, saying in regard to the code to which the Seventh Day\nbelonged, \"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in\nno wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;\" and because He\nalways kept holy the Seventh Day, in this doubtless \"leaving us an\nexample that we should follow in His steps.\"\n\n6. Because the holy women who had attended Jesus Christ at his death\nand burial, are expressly said to have \"rested the SABBATH DAY\n_according to the commandment_,\" (Luke xxiii.\u00a056;) and because, though\nthe narrative proceeds immediately to record the appearance of Jesus\nChrist, on the morning of the _first day of the week_, neither there\nnor elsewhere is one word said about a change of the Sabbath, or about\nthe sabbatic observance of the First Day of the Week.\n\n7. Because the Apostles of our Lord constantly kept the Seventh Day,\nof which there is abundant evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, and\nit is declared of Paul, that, \"_as his manner was_,\" he went into the\nsynagogue frequently on the Sabbath Day. (Compare Luke iv.\u00a016 with\nActs xvii.\u00a02; see also Acts xiii.\u00a014, 42, 44, and xvi.\u00a013.)\n\n8. Because Jesus Christ, foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem,\nwarned his disciples to pray that their flight might not happen \"on\nthe Sabbath Day;\" and as that event was to take place almost forty\nyears after the resurrection of our Lord, it appears that the same\nSabbath was to be then observed by his disciples.\n\n9. Because there is no other day of the week called by the name of\n\"Sabbath,\" in all the Holy Scriptures, but the Seventh Day alone; and\nbecause, when \"the First Day of the Week\" is mentioned in the New\nTestament, it is always clearly distinguished from \"the Sabbath.\"\n\n10. Because not one of those passages which speak of the \"First Day of\nthe Week,\" records an event or transaction peculiar to the Sabbath.\n\n11. Because when God had so carefully committed his Law to writing,\nhad repeated his precepts throughout the prophetic books, and had left\nso many testimonies and examples of the Seventh Day Sabbath on His\nsacred records, it is most unreasonable to suppose that He would have\nrepealed or changed one single article thereof, without recording it\namong the words of our Lord Jesus or His Apostles, in the writings of\nthe New Testament.\n\n12. Because the observance of the Moral Law, (without any exception\nfrom it,) is constantly enjoined, in the writings of the Apostles; and\none of them says that \"Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet\noffend in one point, he is guilty of all,\" quoting at the same time\nthe sixth and seventh commandments. (See Rom. xiii.\u00a09; Gal. v.\u00a014;\nEph. vi.\u00a02, 3; and James ii.\u00a08-11.)\n\n13. Because the religious observance of the _Seventh Day_ of the Week\n_as the Sabbath_, was constantly practised by the primitive\nChristians, for three or four hundred years at least; and because,\nthough it gradually fell into disuse, the neglect of the Sabbath was\ncaused only by those corruptions of Christianity, which at length grew\nup into the grossest idolatry; so that the second commandment was in\nfact, and the fourth was in effect, abolished by an ignorant,\nsuperstitious, and tyrannical priesthood.\n\n14. Because it was only through the superstitious observance of the\nanniversaries of saints and martyrs, and a multitude of other fasts\nand feasts, with which the simplicity of revealed religion was\nencumbered and overwhelmed, that the sabbatic observance of the\nSeventh Day went out of use; and not (in fact) by any real or\npretended command of Christ or His apostles, nor at first by the\nexpress authority of any Pope or Council: for it was kept _as a strict\nfast_, for ages after it lost every other token of a holy day.\n\n15. Because the leaders of the Reformation never claimed for the First\nDay the name of the Sabbath, and never enforced the observance of that\nday by any other authority than that of the Church.\n\n16. Because it is obviously absurd--(_and it is an objection often\nmade by irreligious people_)--that the observance of the First Day of\nthe Week as the Sabbath, should be grounded on a divine precept which\ncommands the observance, not of the _First_, but of the _Seventh_ Day.\n\n17. Because, if the fundamental principle of Protestantism be right\nand true, that \"the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants,\" then\nthe Seventh Day must be the true and only _Sabbath of Protestants_;\nfor, unless that day of the week be kept, they have no _scriptural_\nSabbath at all.\n\n18. Because the pertinacious observance of the First Day of the Week,\nin the stead of the Seventh, has actually given occasion of great\nscandal to the Protestant faith; it has caused the Papists to declare\nthat Protestants admit the _authority of human tradition_ in matters\nof religion; and it has led to intolerance and persecution.\n\n19. Because the observance of the First Day, and neglect of the\nSeventh, having been adopted partly in contempt of the Jews, has\nalways laid a burden upon them, and presented an obstacle to their\nreceiving Christianity, which ought to be removed.\n\n20. Because the observance of the Seventh Day obeys God, honors the\nProtestant Principle, rebukes Papacy, removes stumbling-blocks, and\nsecures for us the presence and blessing of \"the Lord of the Sabbath.\"\n\n Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,\n No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.\n\n\n\n\nNo. 7.\n\nPLAIN QUESTIONS.\n\n\nReader! be pleased to give a plain answer to each of these plain\nquestions, without equivocation or mental reservation.\n\n1. Did God, after he had finished the work of creation, \"bless and\nsanctify\" THE _seventh day of the week_; or simply the _seventh part\nof time_, without reference to any _particular day_ of the seven?\n\n2. Did He not sanctify THE _very day in which he rested_ from his\nwork? Was not that _the last day_ of the seven? Did He sanctify any\nother?\n\n3. WHY did He \"bless and sanctify\" _the_ seventh day? Was it not\nbecause he _rested_ on that day? Will this reason apply to _any other\nday_ of the seven? Did he not _work_ on EVERY other day? (See Gen.\n2:2, 3.)\n\n4. Is not God's example of resting on the seventh day enjoined upon us\nfor imitation? (Ex. 20:8-11.) Do we imitate him, when we rest upon\nsome other day than the one in which He rested?\n\n5. Is it the special _appointment of God_ which renders a day holy, or\nis it _our own act_? Is the day holy because we _count_ it so, or\nbecause God has made it so?\n\n6. When God enjoins us to count the Sabbath, \"the holy of the Lord,\"\n(Isa. 58:13,) is it not equivalent to telling us that He himself has\n_previously_ constituted it a holy day by blessing and sanctifying it?\nIs it any thing more than requiring us to reckon the day to possess\nthat dignity which He _has already_ conferred upon it?\n\n7. If God's blessing does not rest upon one particularly specified\nday, to the exclusion of all others, and we are nevertheless required\nto keep a day holy, are we not required to do what _is impossible_?\nFor how can we count a day to be holy, which God has not previously\nmade so? (Compare Quest. 5.)\n\n8. If God's blessing did not rest upon one particularly specified day,\ncould he challenge to himself any propriety in one day more than in\nanother? Yet in the Sabbath day he claims a special propriety; \"MY\n_holy day_.\" (Isa. 58:13.)\n\n9. Are we not commanded to refrain from labor in _that very day_ which\nGod once \"blessed and sanctified,\" and thereby made holy time? \"In IT\nthou shalt not do any work,\" &c. Do we obey this command when we work\nall of that day, and make it the busiest day of all the seven?\n\n10. If it be downright disobedience to set about our work on the\nseventh day, when God says, \"in _it_ thou shalt NOT do any work,\" can\nwe think to make amends for this act of disobedience by ceasing from\nwork on another day? Even the performance of a required duty will not\nmake amends for another one neglected. How much less, then, the\nperformance of something which is not required! \"Who hath required\nthis at your hand?\"\n\n11. Has God ever _taken away_ the blessing which he once put upon the\nseventh day, and made that day a common or secular day?\n\n12. Does not the _reason_ of the blessing (See Quest. 3,) possess all\nthe cogency now that it ever did? Has it lost force by the lapse of\ntime? And while the reason of an institution remains, does not the\ninstitution itself remain?\n\n13. Was the reason of the blessing which God originally put upon the\nseventh day, founded upon any need that men then had of a Redeemer?\nWas it therefore to receive its accomplishment and fulfillment by the\nactual coming of the Redeemer? In what possible sense can it be said,\nthat Jesus Christ fulfilled and made an end of this reason?\n\n14. Has God ever said of the first day of the week, In _it_ thou shalt\nnot do any work? Has Christ ever said so? Have the apostles?\n\n15. Is there any scriptural proof that Christ, or his apostles, or the\nChristian churches in the days of the apostles, _refrained from labor_\non the first day of the week?\n\n16. As there is no transgression where there is no law, (Rom. 4:15;\nJohn 3:4,) what sin is committed by working on the first day of the\nweek?\n\n17. Does not the Sabbatic Institution RESULT from the blessing and\nsanctifying of _a particular day_? Is not this _the very thing in\nwhich it consists_? How then is the institution _separable_ from the\nday thus \"blessed and sanctified\"? How can it be separated from that\nupon which its very existence depends?\n\n18. If the very life and soul of the institution consist in the\nblessing which was once put upon a particular day, is it not idle to\ntalk of the _transfer_ of the institution to another day? If another\nday has been sanctified and blessed, then it is an _entirely new_\ninstitution, and not a transfer of the old.\n\n19. Does not the law of the Sabbath require the weekly commemoration\nof _that_ rest which God entered into after he had finished the work\nof creation? By what principle of law or logic, then, can that law be\nmade to _require_ the commemoration of the work of redemption?\n\n20. If it be necessary that the work of redemption be commemorated\nweekly by a positive institution, must not the obligation so to\ncommemorate it arise from some law which directly and specifically\nrequires it? But when, instead of this, the attempt is made to derive\nthe obligation from the Sabbath law, is it not a tacit acknowledgment\nthat there is no law requiring the weekly commemoration of the work of\nredemption?\n\n21. Does the Scripture ever apply the name, _Sabbath_, to the first\nday of the week? Even in the _New_ Testament, where the term is used,\nis not the reference always to the _seventh_ day?\n\n22. If Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles ful thirty years after\nthe death of Christ, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, still\ncalls the seventh day of the week the Sabbath, can it be wrong in us\nto do so? (See Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 16:1, 3; 17:1, 2; 18:4.) If this be\nthe _inspired_ application of the term so many years after all the\nceremonial institutions were nailed to the cross, is it not our duty\nto make the same use of the term now?\n\n23. Is it not a manifest perversion of the scriptural use of terms, to\ntake away the sacred name from the seventh day of the week, and give\nit to the first day?\n\n24. When the first day of the week is so generally called the Sabbath,\nare not the common people thereby led to suppose that the Bible calls\nit so? Are they not thus grossly deceived?\n\n25. If the name _Sabbath_ were no longer applied to this day, and it\nshould simply be called first day of the week, as in the Bible, is it\nnot probable that it would soon lose its sacredness in the eyes of the\npeople?\n\n26. Is it possible, then, that God has not given the day a name\nsufficiently sacred to secure for it a religious regard, nor even\nguarded it with a law sufficient to prevent its desecration?\n\n27. _What then?_ HAS GOD LEFT HIS WORK FOR MAN TO MEND! IS IT NOT SAFE\nTO LEAVE THE DAY AS GOD HAS LEFT IT! \"Who hath directed the Spirit of\nthe Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?\" (Isa. 11:13.)\n\n28. Are you very sure that by the Lord's day, (Rev. 1:10,) is meant\nthe first day of the week? Have you any _Scripture_ proof of it? Have\nyou any other proof of it than the testimony of those who are called\nthe early Fathers?\n\n29. If the testimony of the early Fathers is to be relied on, that the\nLord's day means the first day of the week, ought not their testimony\nto be just as much relied on, as to the manner in which the primitive\nChristians observed the day?\n\n30. If it were even certain that by the Lord's day the writer of the\nbook of Revelations meant to designate the first day of the week,\nwould it thence follow that it is a day _sacred_ by _divine_\nappointment, any more than that the \"_Sabbath day's journey_\" (Acts\n1:12,) was a distance limited and prescribed by _divine_ authority? If\nLuke could select the latter expression from the vocabulary of _human\ntradition_, without intending to sanction it as being of divine\norigin, could not John do the same with regard to the former\nexpression?\n\n31. Do the Fathers, or any one of them, inform us that the Lord's day\nwas observed by _abstinence from labor_?--that it was observed as the\nSabbath? Mark the question. It is not, was the day _observed_, simply;\nbut, was it observed _as the Sabbath_?\n\n32. Is there not an important distinction between the _Sabbath_ and a\n_religious festival_? Does not the word Sabbath mean _rest_? Can any\nday, therefore, be called a Sabbath day, which is not a day of rest\nfrom ordinary labor?\n\n33. Does a religious _festival_ require any thing more than the\ncommemoration of some important event, allowing the time not occupied\nin the public celebration of it to be spent in labor or amusement? Is\nnot this precisely the manner in which the first day of the week was\nobserved, according to the testimony of the ancient Fathers?\n\n34. Though the observance of the first day of the week as a religious\nfestival be in itself innocent, (Rom. 14:5,) so long as it is not made\na pretext for dispensing with an express law of God, (Matt. 15:6,) yet\ndo you find it any where in the word of God _commanded_ as a _duty_?\n\n35. Do you believe that a Sabbath, in the true and proper sense of the\nterm; namely, a day of rest from all ordinary labor, is necessary and\nindispensable to the well-being of mankind? If so, do you honestly\nsuppose that God would set it aside, and have its place supplied by\nnothing more than a religious festival?\n\n36. Is it not wicked to uphold a course which makes the commandment of\nGod of none effect? (Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13.)\n\nReader! carefully ponder the foregoing questions, together with the\nScripture references. Answer them as you would if you stood at the\ngates of death. Do not trifle with the Holy Spirit of God, by forcibly\nwresting his word from its obvious meaning. Let conscience be\nunfettered; and act, as fully realizing that \"THOU, GOD, SEEST ME.\"\n\n Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,\n No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.\n\n\nDIALOGUE,\n\nBetween a Minister of the Gospel and a Sabbatarian\n\n_Sabbatarian._ Did Jehovah ever sanctify one day above another?\n\n_Minister._ He did.\n\n_S._ And what day was that?\n\n_M._ The seventh.\n\n_S._ When?\n\n_M._ When he finished his creative work.\n\n_S._ Where?\n\n_M._ In Eden.\n\n_S._ On whom was it obligatory?\n\n_M._ On our first parents, and all their posterity.\n\n_S._ Did he ever unsanctify that day?\n\n_M._ No.\n\n_S._ Did he ever sanctify the first, or any other day than the\nseventh, as a day of rest?\n\n_M._ Not that I know of.\n\n_S._ Then do not those who neglect the seventh day, take away\nsomething from the word of God? And do not those who keep the first\nday add to that word? Read the threatnings of the Lord against\nsuch:--\"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him\nthe plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take\naway from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away\nhis part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from\nthe things which are written in this book.\"\n\n\nCOUNTERFEIT COIN.\n\nBeing the substance of a recent Conversation between an eminent\nCounsellor at Law and a Sabbatarian.\n\nThe Lawyer contended that although the first day of the week had no\ndivine authority for its sanctity or observance as a Sabbath, yet if\nit be kept as scrupulously and conscientiously as the seventh day\ndemanded, _it could not but be_ as acceptable to God.\n\nIn answer to such sophistry, the Sabbatarian submitted the following\nlegal case to him:--\n\n\"I am told that I can purchase, in the State of Connecticut, _one\nhundred_ copper cents, bearing the impress and superscription of the\nUnited States Mint, and equal in every respect in value to the mint\ncoin, for _sixty-five_ cents, payable in gold or silver. But I admit\nthem to be counterfeit. I admit, also, that I circulate this spurious\ncoin. Now, will you undertake, for a fee of $10,000, to defend my\ncause against a prosecution for passing such false coin, and exonerate\nme from conviction in the United States' Courts.\"\n\nThe honest lawyer's answer unhesitatingly was, \"I cannot argue your\ncause in the very teeth of so unquestionable a law as appears to exist\non the Statute Books.\"[9]\n\nThe Sabbatarian replied:--\"Then, as you admit _your first day Sabbath\na counterfeit_, allow me to answer you as the celebrated Mr. Whiston\ndid Chancellor King of England upon a similar question: 'If God\nAlmighty should be as consistent, as just, and as jealous of his laws\nin the Court of Heaven, as my Lord Chancellor is in his, _where are we\nthen_?'\"\n\nTHE INFERENCE.--If, then, I cannot obtain an advocate on earth, (for\nno one of repute would undertake it,) to plead my cause with the offer\nof a fee of $10,000, for the violation of a law of man's making, what\nground have I to expect that the only advocate to be obtained in the\nCourt of Heaven, i. e. _the Lord Jesus Christ_, will defend my cause\nagainst a breach of that law which his father ever made punishable\nwith DEATH, temporal and eternal?--and who himself, when on earth, in\nhis comment on that law, averred that not one _jot_ or _tittle_ could\nin any wise pass from it? (Matt. 5:18, 19.)\n\n[9] If any person shall falsely make or counterfeit any copper coin of\nthe United States, or pass or publish the same, he shall be subjected\nto a fine of $1000, and suffer imprisonment to hard labor for a term\nnot exceeding three years.--Gordon's Digest, p. 922.\n\n Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,\n No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.\n\n\n\n\nNo. 8.\n\nSABBATH CONTROVERSY.\n\nTHE TRUE ISSUE.\n\n\nOne of the greatest difficulties which we who observe the seventh day\nhave ever found in the Sabbath controversy, is to make our opponents\nunderstand what is the real question at issue. So long have their\nthoughts, feelings and habits, been moulded under one particular view\nof the subject, that it seems almost a miracle if one is found who can\ndisregard all foreign matter, and look at the precise point in debate\nlong enough to come to any certain and intelligent conclusion about\nit. But it is evident, that if an opponent is suffered to raise false\nissues, or to be continually striking off into the discussion of some\npoint which does not affect the final question, we may prolong the\ncontroversy _ad infinitum_.\n\nLet us then endeavor to state distinctly what is, and what is not, the\nissue between us and the observers of the first day of the week.\n\n1. The issue is not whether the first day of the week was observed at\na very early period by Christians. We admit that it was. We admit that\nits observance may be traced up to very near the borders of the\napostolic age. What more can a generous, conscientious opponent, who\nscorns any other aid than what the truth will give him, ask? He knows\nin his own soul that this is the very utmost that can be produced from\nany of his histories. Let him ransack his old musty volumes all the\nway backward, till he fancies he can almost talk to the \"beloved\ndisciple\" face to face, and what more can he find? Verily, nothing.\n\nBut when you have got this admission from us, then we have another\nquestion to ask. _How_--don't dodge the question--HOW was the day\nobserved by the early Christians? We admit the observance of it; but\nthat is not the issue. The issue respects the _manner_ of observing\nit. You, if you are consistent, will say that the early Christians\nobserved it not only by public worship, but by _abstaining from\nlabor_. We, on the other hand, deny that they abstained from labor. We\nadmit that they held public worship; but--we repeat it--_we deny that\nthey abstained from labor_. We deny that they regarded it as a\n_Sabbath_, \"resting according to the commandment.\" Now with the issue\nthus fairly stated, we put the laboring oar into your hands, and\nchallenge you to prove your position. Bring proof, if you can, that\nthe early Christians regarded the first day of the week as any thing\nelse than a _religious festival_; between which and a _Sabbath_ there\nis a very important difference, the latter requiring abstinence from\nlabor, the former merely requiring public worship in honor of the\nevent commemorated, and allowing the remainder of the day to be spent\nin labor or amusement.\n\n2. When it is once settled, that in a very early period of the church\nthe first day was observed as a festival; when our opponents have\nfairly jaded themselves to a \"weariness of the flesh,\" in their \"much\nstudy\" of the old fathers, to find proof of it;--though we never\ncalled it in question;--then the issue is, whether this festival was\n_ordained_ by _Christ_?--whether the New Testament furnishes _inspired\nexample_ of such festival? Our opponents affirm; we deny. We maintain\nthat in every passage of the New Testament, where the first day of the\nweek is mentioned, the context furnishes a sufficient reason why it is\nmentioned, without the least necessity of supposing it to have been a\nfestival season. No exception can be made to this, unless in regard to\n1\u00a0Cor. 16:2. The reason why the Apostle in this place specifies the\nfirst, rather than any other day of the week, does not so clearly\nappear from the context; but the peculiar phraseology employed, \"let\neach one of you lay by him,\" [himself,] is against the idea of any\npublic meeting; and if no public meeting, of course no festival\nseason. As every allusion to the first day of the week is sufficiently\nexplained by other circumstances noticed in the context, the\n_inferential_ proof of its festival character is thereby destroyed. As\nfor _clear_, _positive_ proof of it, such as express precept or\ncommand, no person of modesty pretends it. Still less is there any\nproof of its _Sabbatic_ character.\n\n3. Another point wherein we are necessarily at issue with great\nnumbers of Christians, is whether the _institution_ of the Sabbath is\nseparable from the particular _day_ to be observed. They affirm; we\ndeny. We maintain that God's blessing and sanctifying a particular day\nis the very thing in which the institution consists. To render this\nplain matter yet more plain, we invite close attention to the wording\nof the fourth commandment; premising, however, that the word Sabbath\nis not _translated_ from a Hebrew word, but is the Hebrew word itself\nanglicized, just as baptism is an anglicized Greek word. The proper\ntranslation of the word is _Rest_. Now let the word Rest be\nsubstituted for Sabbath, and how clear it becomes--\n\n\"_Remember the Rest day to keep it holy._\" [Surely some particular day\nis denoted; for it is THE Rest day, not A Rest day.] _Six days shalt\nthou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Rest of\nthe Lord thy God._ [Is it any where historically recorded as a fact\nthat God rested on THE seventh day? It is Gen. 2:2. 'On the seventh\nday God rested from, all his work which he had made.' Who does not see\nthat that day on which God rested, was the _last_ of the seven which\nconstituted the first week of time?] _In it_--[in WHAT? why, in the\nseventh day, the last day of the week; for the pronoun _it_ can have\nno other antecedent]--_thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son,\nnor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy\ncattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates._ [WHY must no work\nbe done on that particular day, the seventh or last day of the week?\nThe reason follows.] _For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,\nthe sea and all that in them is, and_ RESTED _on the seventh day_, [as\nthe record in Gen. 2:2 proves. See also Heb. 4:4.] _Wherefore the Lord\nblessed the Rest day and sanctified it._\n\nThe conclusion is irresistible, that the Rest day spoken of is the\nparticular day on which God rested from his work, which, as before\nshown, was the last day of the week. That very day, and no other, God\nblessed and sanctified. The only reason assigned _why_ he sanctified\nit, is \"because that in it he had rested from all his work which God\ncreated and made.\" Gen. 2:3. The Rest day, then, which we are required\nto observe, is \"the Rest of the Lord thy God:\" which does not mean the\nrest which the Lord thy God has appointed, though it is true that he\nhas appointed it; nor does it mean a rest which becomes the Lord's by\nreason of our appropriating it to him; but \"the rest of the Lord thy\nGod\" means THE REST WHICH THE LORD THY GOD OBSERVED.\n\nNow from all this we think it must be evident, that whoever observes\nany other Rest day than the seventh day of the week, does not observe\nthe Rest--Sabbath--\"of the Lord thy God.\" He may, it is true,\nappropriate it to the Lord his God, and in that sense call it the\nLord's; he may ignorantly suppose that Christ in the Gospel has\nappointed it, and in that sense also call it the Lord's; but it can by\nno means be called \"the Rest of the Lord thy God\" in the sense of that\nexpression in the fourth commandment. Hence, irresistible is our\nconviction, that he does not obey the commandment. O brother\nChristian, why will you persist in maintaining that your Sunday\nkeeping is an act of obedience to the law of the Sabbath?\n\n Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,\n No. 9 Spruce-street, New-York.\n\n\n\n\nNo. 9\n\nTHE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.\n\nFALSE EXPOSITION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.\n\n\nThe Fourth Commandment has been variously expounded by its professed\nfriends. Among these expositions, none has been more injurious than\nthat which represents it as requiring the observance, not of _the_\nSabbath, and _the_ seventh day, but of _a_ Sabbath, and _a_ seventh\nday--not of a certain and well-known time, but of an uncertain and\nvarying time. Yet this is the exposition of it which is given both by\ncommentators and writers on the subject of the Sabbath. It will be\nfound, however, that this view is generally presented in order to\nprepare the way to introduce the first day of the week, under the\nspecious name of Lord's Day, into the place of the Sabbath. Thus some\nare made to think, that the name Sabbath may as well be applied to the\nfirst day of the week as to the seventh. But to such an exposition\nthere are several serious objections:--\n\n1. It is a perversion of the original text itself. In every place\nwhere the weekly Sabbath and the seventh day are spoken of, the Hebrew\narticle is uniformly used. This article is often used like our\ndemonstrative _this_--but more commonly like our definite article\n_the_--never as our indefinite article _a_ or _an_; and _Gesenius_, in\nanswer to the question whether it may be used _indefinitely_, says,\n\"The definite article cannot be rightly said to stand indefinitely.\"\nTo this opinion agree all our translators, both ancient and modern,\nwho have rendered the terms, both in the fourth commandment and all\nother places of the Scripture, by _the_ Sabbath and _the_ seventh day.\n\n2. It makes the Fourth Commandment to be indefinite and absurd. If\nthat commandment only requires the observance of _a_ Sabbath or\n_rest_, and that on _a_ seventh day, then one man might keep the\nseventh day, another the third day, and another the fifth day, yet all\nobey the commandment. What confusion would thus result from carrying\nout this exposition to its legitimate results! But God's commandment\nis not yea and nay after this manner. It says, \"_the_ seventh day is\n_the_ Sabbath of the Lord thy God.\" That man will not be held\nguiltless who misinterprets and misrepresents it, for however pious a\npurpose he may do so.\n\n3. It is contrary to the teachings of the very men who give this\nexposition; for they affirm, that the fourth commandment required the\nkeeping of _the_ seventh day until Christ came. Now, if the Jews\nbefore Christ, were bound to keep a certain and definite day, and that\n_the_ seventh day, then the commandment required a certain and\ndefinite day, and that _the_ seventh day.\n\nFrom these considerations it is evident, that those who represent the\nfourth commandment as requiring the observance of only _a_ Sabbath,\nand that upon _some one_ day of the seven indefinitely, are guilty of\na false exposition of the commandment, and of handling the word of God\ndeceitfully. They make a plain passage of Scripture to signify one\nthing for some thousands of years, and then ever afterwards to signify\nanother thing. Thus do they make void the commandment of God, that\nthey may keep their own traditions.\n\nNow let us turn to a consideration of some of the _consequences_ of\nthis kind of exposition. Among these we will mention only three.\n\n1. It overturns all certainty in explaining the Scriptures. If a man,\nin translating from a Latin or Greek author, should pervert his\nauthor's meaning in this manner, by using words in a different sense\nfrom that in which they were intended, he would be cast out and\ndespised. But yet when a preacher represents the term _the Sabbath_ as\nmeaning simply _a rest_, that so he may call the first day of the week\n_a rest_, and therefore _the Sabbath_, he deals worse with the\nScriptures than the translator just mentioned does with his profane\nauthor. Instead, however, of being cast out and despised, his\nspeculations are allowed to go for truth. Thus unbelievers are\nencouraged in their infidelity; and occasion is given for them to say,\nthat the Bible is interpreted by its friends to mean just what they\nplease to have it. It is dangerous for men to use their wits thus to\nblind the eyes of their fellows.\n\n2. It abolishes the Lord's Sabbath, and makes the Fourth Commandment\nto be a mere cipher. First, it abolishes the Lord's Sabbath, because\nit teaches that the observance of the seventh day, on which God rested\nand which he introduced into the commandment as one with the Sabbath,\nis not at all binding, but the day may be spent in any kind of labor.\nIs not this to abolish _the Lord's_ Sabbath? Second, it makes the\nfourth commandment a cipher, because it takes away the _time_, which\nis the seventh day, and the _event commemorated_, which is God's\nresting from his creative work. Now read the commandment, as these\nexpounders would have it, bereft of the _time_ and the _event\ncommemorated_. It then commands only _a rest_, without any precept or\nexample as to its length or frequency. One person, therefore, may rest\none hour in each day; another one day in a month; and a third one\nmonth in a year; and each may call this keeping the Sabbath. Does not\nthis make the fourth commandment a mere cipher?\n\n3. It abuses God's Word, and misleads his people. It abuses his word\nby representing that the Word teaches what it does not teach, and that\nit fails to teach what it attempts to teach. It misleads his people,\non one side, by pressing the fourth commandment to sustain the first\nday of the week, which it says nothing about, thus laying a yoke upon\nthe people, requiring them to observe a day, in regard to which they\nwill finally be asked, Who hath required this at your hands? On the\nother side, it misleads the people, by encouraging them to neglect a\nday which God hath sanctified; and commanded them to keep holy.\n\nSuch are some of the consequences of this false exposition of the\nfourth commandment. They affect both the sabbatic institution itself,\nand those whose duty it is to remember it. It is true that the persons\nwho countenance such expositions are called very zealous and godly\nmen; but this, instead of bettering the case, makes it worse. If they\nwere enemies to the commandment, such things might be expected, and\nwould be comparatively unimportant; but that the wound should be\ninflicted by its friends, aggravates the evil. There is occasion to\ntremble for some religious teachers, who profess great interest in the\nSabbath, but who yet refuse to hear the truth in regard to it. Some\nsuch there are, who, if the truth be presented to them, instead of\ninquiring if these things are so, imitate the Jews of old who, when\nthey were cut to the heart, gnashed on their reprover with their\nteeth; and when they could endure it no longer, \"stoppped their ears,\nand ran upon him with one accord.\" Such would do well to inquire if\nthey are not in this thing teaching error for truth, and their own\ntraditions for the commandments of God.\n\n Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,\n No. 9 Spruce-street, New-York.\n\n\n\n\n[No. 10.]\n\nTHE TRUE SABBATH\n\nEMBRACED AND OBSERVED.\n\nBY ELD. SAMUEL DAVISON,\n\nMany years a regular Baptist Minister; now Pastor of the Seventh day\nBaptist Church in Shiloh, New Jersey.\n\n NEW-YORK:\n PUBLISHED BY THE AMER. SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.\n\nHaving often been solicited to give an account of my conversion from\nthe observance of what is commonly called the Lord's Day, or Sunday,\nto the observance of the ancient Sabbath of Jehovah, the seventh day\nof the week, I submit this brief narrative to public notice, not so\nmuch for the justification of my present practice, as in the hope that\nit may be the means of leading many other Christian people candidly to\nexamine this subject, which, as it appears to me, is very essential to\nthe restoration of primitive Christianity. The narrative derives its\nimportance, not from the person of the narrator, but from the\npractical exhibition which it furnishes of the working of divine truth\nupon the mind.\n\n\nEARLY PREPOSSESSIONS.\n\nMy parents, and nearly all of my family connections, being members of\nBaptist churches, or attached to that denomination--and I having been\na member of the same for above twenty-five years, and more than half\nthat time an accredited minister among them--all my preferences and\nprepossessions were with their peculiarities as churches of the Lord\nJesus Christ. If there was one characteristic doctrine of the Baptists\nwhich I esteemed above another, it was this: \"We believe that the\nScriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by the inspiration\nof God, and are a perfect rule of faith and practice.\" I could say\nwith the Psalmist, \"My heart standeth in awe of thy word; for thou\nhast magnified thy word above all thy name.\"\n\n\nMATURED ATTACHMENTS.\n\nI believed firmly, that if there was a Christian people upon the earth\nwho had kept the primitive faith from the days of the apostles, and\nhad never symbolized with the errors of the church of Rome in her\nidolatrous and adulterous course, that people was the Baptist\ndenomination. If there was any thing in my religious privileges in\nwhich I gloried, it was in thinking that I had never been deceived by\nthe working of that mystery of iniquity. I was sensible that the\nBaptists had errors among them; but I regarded them as the errors of\nfallible human nature, and not as departures from the constitutional\ndoctrine and law of the Holy Scriptures--some of them superinduced by\nan unwatchful and familiar intercourse with our more erroneous\nPedobaptist brethren, and hence mediately, though not directly, the\neffect of that great apostacy which was predicted as to come and\ndeceive all nations. Holding these sentiments, I was ardently and\nconscientiously attached to that denomination, as the most scriptural\npeople on earth. I did not doubt but that I should remain united with\nthem in time, in death, and in eternal life.\n\n\nREGARD FOR SCRIPTURAL CHRISTIANITY.\n\nNotwithstanding my prepossessions and attachments, it has been my\nprevailing desire, from the time of my conversion, to be a Scriptural\nChristian; and since I became a teacher of others, I have felt a\ngrowing sense of obligation to know and teach the whole counsel of God\naright. The words of the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples, saying,\n\"Call no man master,\" \"Call no man father,\" have for years been so\ndeeply impressed upon my heart, that I have scrupulously refused to\ncall myself a Fullerite, a Calvinist, an Armenian, or after any human\nname. Although I have my preferences in reading and approving the\nsentiments of great and good men, the Bible alone is my creed book.\n\n\nFORMER SABBATH SENTIMENTS.\n\nMy former Sabbath sentiments were formed according to the Puritan\nmodel. While a child, I learned Sutcliff's and Watts' Catechisms, in\nboth of which it is taught, that the ten commandments are a rule of\nlife to good men; and traditionally I was taught, that the Sabbath was\nchanged from the seventh to the first day of the week in honor of the\nresurrection of Christ; and I fully believed this was confirmed by the\nvarious references to the first day contained in the New Testament.\n\n\nDISTURBED ABOUT THE SABBATH.\n\nI was first disturbed about the Sabbath seven years ago, when a\nbrother sent me a tract upon the subject, called the _Investigator_. I\nread it with considerable interest, and was much perplexed in\nattempting to satisfy myself with my own views, as I went along in the\nperusal of it. I wished then, that there had been something more\nexplicit upon the subject of the change of the day than what I could\nfind in the New Testament. Not questioning, however, but that it was\ndivinely changed, I quieted, rather than satisfied, my mind with what\nI supposed to be abundant apostolic example; and I remarked, that if\nour Pedobaptist brethren could produce from the Scriptures as clear\nexamples of infant baptism, as we could of keeping the first day of\nthe week for a Sabbath, I would admit its validity. Although I would\nnot dare to say so now, then it sufficed to quiet my mind.\n\nI had no farther solicitude upon the subject, until about midsummer of\n1843. At that time, as several professors of religion of my\nacquaintance did not regard the day as I thought the Lord's Day ought\nto be regarded, I concluded to preach a sermon upon the subject, and\ncommenced preparing one. I had then recently purchased Neander's\nHistory of the Christian Religion and Church during the First Three\nCenturies. I read this book with much satisfaction, as the work of an\nable and candid historian, who takes a philosophical view of the\nevents and circumstances of society which operated to give character\nto those early ages of church history. In the section on Christian\nWorship and Festivals, I was surprised to find the following\nstatement, viz: \"OPPOSITION TO JUDAISM _introduced the particular\nfestival of Sunday_ very early indeed into the place of the\nSabbath.... The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was\nalways only a human ordinance; and it was far from the intentions of\nthe apostles to establish a divine command in this respect--far from\nthem, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the\nSabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false\napplication of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by\nthat time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.\" I was the\nmore surprised at this statement, as I found Neander was not a\nSabbath-keeper. He takes the high-church ground, acknowledging the\nright of the so-called apostolic or catholic church to alter or ordain\nthe rites of Christian worship; which is indeed, the foundation\nprinciple of all Papal, Puseyite, and Pedobaptist observances. I saw\nclearly enough, that if Neander was right, I had no better foundation\nfor Sunday-keeping than hierarchists have for their Easter, Ascension,\nand Christmas Festivals, which I had always repudiated; or than\nPedobaptists have for sprinkling infants. I therefore determined to\ngive the subject\n\n\nA THOROUGH EXAMINATION.\n\nI commenced with human authors, and read Fuller, Buck, Doddridge,\nPaley, Wilson, Humphrey, Nevins, Kingsbury, Phelps, Whateley, and\nothers; and I was astonished to find every one of them admitting, that\nthere is no express command, precept, or passage of Scripture, to\nauthorize the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day\nof the week. They all attempt to support the practice by inferences\nand analogical reasonings from particular events. Not having\nveneration large enough to bow to their great names and acute\nreasonings, I was landed upon a lonely shore, without pilot or\ncompass, with no guide but the truthful chart of Revelation. As I had\noften vowed in my heart to the Lord, that I would be a Bible Christian\nso far as I could discover the meaning of the divine Word, or know the\nrevealed will of God; and had more than once told my Pedobaptist\nfriends, when accused of sectarianism, that I would leave all for the\ntruth's sake, if I could discover that I was wrong; I was greatly\nperplexed, for _I found a great fact_--The Sabbath was changed. The\ngreater part of the world, the most estimable of Christians, do keep\ntheir weekly Sabbath on the first day! Can they all be wrong? I\nconversed with some, and found them more inconsistent in their reasons\nthan the authors I read. For a time, to sanction the change of the\nSabbath, I took what may properly be called prelatical ground. It may\nbe stated as follows, viz: \"The thing exists; and in the New Testament\nwe find some things which appear to us so like it, that, we conclude\nthis and they are identical; though we cannot find the particulars of\nthe change. And besides, we find some occurrences mentioned in the New\nTestament which seemingly happened in accordance with it and which\nafford reasons for it, and so we think, they should be considered\nsatisfactory evidences of the change existing at the time.\" But my\nconfidence in this fact was overturned by discovering _another great\nfact_, viz: That the first day was not honored as a Sabbath during the\nfirst two centuries of the Christian era; and that when it did come to\nbe so observed, it was not on the considerations that are now\nalledged, but on what appeared to me a wicked reason--mere spite to\nthe Jews. I therefore commenced anew,\n\n\nA THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nBut the more attentively I read it, with this object in view, viz. to\nfind out the mind of Christ upon the subject of the Sabbath, the more\nplainly I saw that it was against me. I found that Christ and his\napostles enjoined the observance of the law of the ten commandments as\nholy, just, and good--that law which says, \"Remember the Sabbath day\nto keep it holy, ... the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy\nGod.\" I found, also, that Christ had said, (Mark 2:27, 28,) \"The\nSabbath was made for man; therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the\nSabbath day\"--plainly incorporating it into the laws of his kingdom.\nLuke also says, many years after the resurrection, writing the account\nin his Gospel of that event, \"The women rested the Sabbath day\naccording to the commandment\"--thus recognizing it, as it appeared to\nme, to be a commandment still in force.\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.\n\nThe Resurrection of Christ being regarded as the great event which\nrequired the change in question, I carefully considered that matter.\nBut I no where found it spoken of by the New Testament writers, as it\nis by divines of modern times. The only instance I could find of its\ncelebration by the apostles, was in the ordinance of baptism, in these\nwords, \"If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,\nwe shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.\" (Rom. 6:5.) And\nagain, \"What shall they do which are baptized for the [resurrection of\nthe] dead, if the dead rise not at all?\" (1\u00a0Cor. 15:29.) I concluded\nthat there could not be two apostolic ways of celebrating it; and\nhence that I must look for some other reason to justify the change in\nquestion.\n\n\nTHE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.\n\nI had always supposed that our Saviour rose on the morning of the\nfirst day of the week, and had no doubt about finding it plainly\nrecorded that he did. But when I searched for it in the evangelists, I\nfound the accounts very different from what I had supposed. Matthew\n28:1, reads, \"In the end of the Sabbath.\" Mark 16:1--\"When the Sabbath\nwas passed.\" Matthew--\"As it began to dawn towards the first day of\nthe week.\" Mark--\"Very early in the morning, the first day of the\nweek.\" Luke 24:1--\"Very early in the morning.\" John 20:1--\"Early, when\nit was yet dark, ... they came to the sepulchre, and found not the\nbody of the Lord Jesus.\" As this did not tell the exact time of his\nresurrection, I set myself to see if I could find it by any other\npassages. On examination, it appeared plain to me, that as he was\nburied at sun-down, according to that law in Deut. 21:23, to fulfill\nhis own prediction, \"So shall the Son of man be three days and three\nnights in the heart of the earth,\" his resurrection must have taken\nplace at the same hour of the day, or rather evening--which would\ndestroy its identity with the first day as now reckoned, and carry\nback his crucifixion to the fourth day of the week.\n\nAll we know of the time of the crucifixion, I found to be, that it was\non the fourteenth day of the first month, the preparation day of the\nPassover The fifteenth day was the Passover Sabbath, a high day with\nthe Jews. (See John 19:14, 31.)\n\nIf Jesus was thus crucified on the fourth day of the week, I found\nthat it made a striking correspondence between the event and the\nprediction in Daniel 9:7.\n\nThe reason why the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of PENTECOST,\nI found to be, because it was the first annual national assembly after\nthe crucifixion--the Saviour being put to death at the Passover, and\nPentecost being fifty days after. This event, therefore, had nothing\nto do with the Sabbath.\n\n\nCHRIST'S APPEARANCES.\n\nThe appearances of Christ to his disciples on the first day of the\nweek, are considered as good reasons for sanctifying that day. It is\nsupposed that he so designed them. But these did not appear to me as I\nexpected, when I came to examine them carefully, I knew them as\nrelated by the evangelists, but I had them traditionally arranged and\nassociated to suit the arguments for keeping the first day; and when I\ncame to read them with an honest inquiry after the truth, they\nappeared very different from what I had supposed. I found that there\nwere five appearances of Christ to his disciples on the first day\nfollowing his resurrection; and neither of them occurred when the\ndisciples were assembled for worship; neither were they accompanied by\nany such direction.\n\nHis first appearance was to the four women, as they returned from the\nsepulchre, where they had been with spices to embalm the body of\nJesus. They were directed by an angel, and by Jesus himself, to go and\ntell his disciples that Christ was risen, and would meet them on a\nmountain in Galilee as he had promised them before his crucifixion.\nThere was nothing in this like Sabbath-keeping!\n\nThe women having gone into the city, informed Peter and John, who went\nimmediately to the sepulchre; and having looked in and satisfied\nthemselves that the report of the women was true, Peter and John\nreturned to the city. But Mary tarried still at the sepulchre,\nweeping, when Jesus appeared to her alone. (John 20:16.)\n\nNext he appeared to Peter. (Luke 24:34, 1\u00a0Cor. 15:5.)\n\nAfterward he appeared to Cleopas and another disciple as they journied\nto Emmaus. (Luke 24:13-35.)\n\nAt night, when they had retired for their evening repast, Jesus\nappeared in the midst of them, and partook with them of a piece of\nbroiled fish and an honey comb. (Luke 24:42.)\n\nThese were all on the first day of the week, and they appeared to me\nconclusive evidence, that the disciples had not yet received any\nintimations of a change of Sabbath time, there being no evidence of it\nin their conduct or discourse.\n\nEight days after this, Jesus appeared again to his disciples, Thomas\nbeing with them. (John 20:26.) After these things, he shewed himself\nagain to seven of his disciples as they were fishing at the sea of\nTiberius. (John 21:1-14.)\n\nAt another time, probably on the mountain in Galilee, he was seen of\nfive hundred brethren at once. (1\u00a0Cor. 15:6.)\n\nAfter this, he was seen of James. (1\u00a0Cor. 15:7.)\n\nThen of the disciples when he was taken up into heaven. (Luke 24:50,\n51.)\n\nLast of all, he was seen by Saul of Tarsus on his way to Damascus.\n(1\u00a0Cor. 15:8.)\n\nThere are eleven instances mentioned of his meeting his disciples, and\nnot one of them contains a single reference to the Sabbath in any way\nwhatever, which fully convinced me that the pretence of the Sabbath\nbeing changed at the resurrection of Christ was wholly groundless. How\nany one, without very strong prepossessions and blindness, could think\nthese things make a Sabbath, I could not see. Only five of these\ninstances are said to be on the first day, and these were all private\ninterviews! Saul of Tarsus might as well conclude that he ought to\nbuild a meeting-house where Jesus met him, as for the disciples to\nmake a Sabbath of the first day because Jesus appeared to them on that\nday. After examining these things, it looked to me as though the\nPapists were quite as justifiable for changing the second commandment\nto make an image of Christ and his cross, as Protestants are for\naltering the fourth commandment to honor the resurrection. The Papists\nhonor the crucifixion, and the Protestants the resurrection.\n\n\nAPOSTOLIC EXAMPLES.\n\nI looked for apostolic examples. But alas, they all failed me. They\ndid not afford me the evidences I had supposed they would. I found but\none account of a Christian assembly on the first day of the week,\nwhich was at Troas; and that was an evening meeting, and a parting\nmeeting which Paul held with his friends; and while he was holding\nthat meeting, seven of his companions in travel went and removed the\nship in which they were to sail from Troas to Assos, whither he\nfollowed them on foot to go aboard. I thought, Could they be keeping\nSabbath in so doing? (See Acts 20:1-14.)\n\n\"_The Lord's Day_,\" I found mentioned but once in the New Testament,\n(Rev. 1:10,) and there it does not tell what day of the week it was\non, so that I judged it certainly must favor that day for which there\nis both Bible command and example, rather than that day for which\nthere is nothing but custom and tradition. Thus it appeared to me,\nthat all apostolic example was not only against the observance of the\nfirst day, but clearly in favor of the seventh; for I found that at\nAntioch in Pisidia, the Apostle observed the Sabbath with both Jews\nand Gentiles. (Acts 13:14, 42, 44.) The same at Philippi. (Acts\n16:13.) And at Thessalonica. (Acts 17:2, 3.) Also at Corinth, where\nthe Apostle continued a year and six months, he observed EVERY Sabbath\nday. (Acts 18:4, 11.)\n\n_The law of God_, with all its awful sanctions, flaming from Mount\nSinai, appeared to me to threaten my destruction if I dared to reject\nany part of its holy claims, for when I read what Jesus said, (Luke\n16:17,) \"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle\nof the law to fail,\" I could not entertain a doubt but that it was\nobligatory upon his disciples.\n\n\nTHE DECISION.\n\nThese things greatly distressed me, and in the end separated me from\nSunday-keeping forever. At this time I was not acquainted with a\nsingle seventh-day Christian. But a bookseller sent me some copies of\nthe \"Address of the Seventh-day Baptists to the Baptists of the United\nStates,\" which was peculiarly opportune to my state of mind. It showed\nme the inconsistency of Sunday-keeping with all the foundation\nprinciples of the faith I had received, and the order I had observed;\nand served to bring me to a decision. Yet I did not dare to submit my\nmind at once to the force of truth, until I had repeatedly\ninvestigated every Scripture passage and event on which I had formerly\nrelied for a justification of my faith. I endeavored to do this as\nindependently of extrinsic considerations as I could; and each time\nbrought me to the same conclusion. I could find no Scripture authority\nfor a first-day Sabbath. Yet the conflict was not over. I suffered for\nsome time that deep mental anguish which attends a conscientious mind,\nwhere enlightened judgment conflicts with all the inclinations,\nexpectations, and kindliest associations of life. If ever an anxious\nmariner sailed tremblingly between Sylla and Charybdis, surely his\ncondition was like mine at this time. To advocate the Sunday\nobservance without Bible authority, I could not for conscience's sake.\nTo embrace the no-Sabbath doctrine, I dared not; this was too dark and\ndownward a leap from the highway of holiness for me to hazard; and the\nformer was too disloyal and dishonest a course for me to pursue in the\nname of the King of saints. For a time I indulged a forlorn hope, that\nI might find some way of reconciling the matter so as to appear\nconsistent without leaving the denomination. But accustomed to speak\nthe honest sentiments of my heart, I found the subject naturally\ninfluencing my prayers and my preaching, and in other ways\nembarrassing me, so that it became a burden I knew not how to bear. I\ncommenced keeping the Sabbath alone in my study. It seemed now as if\nGod had shut me up to my own vows; _I was compelled to renounce all_\nfor his truth, or prove apostate to the principles of godliness! Dark\nindeed appeared my prospects. I had a wife and eight children to\nsupport, and no human resource to look to but my salary. I felt, too,\nfor the reputation, sentiments, and prepossessions of my wife and\nchildren, some of whom had already made a profession of religion, and\nfor many other young converts recently gathered into the church of\nwhich I was pastor. But just at that time, I was called to baptize a\nyoung woman who had to leave father and mother, and brothers and\nsisters, and all she had on earth, for her faith in Christ. This\ngreatly assisted me to determine to do so too.\n\nThe decision gave great relief to my mind. I could now with more\nconfidence appeal to our Father in heaven for support and direction. I\ncould with great comfort appropriate many precious promises of God's\nWord to my own case, and find them a precious cordial to my soul.\nNever have I found more enjoyment in divine things than since I thus\nrenounced all for Christ. I found as the Psalmist expresses it, that\n\"great peace have they that love thy law, and nothing shall offend\nthem.\" \"O taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man that\ntrusteth in him.\"\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nThe result has been happy in my own family. All in my house who have\ncome to years of discretion have since united in walking according to\nthe commandments. Although it was not easy at first to throw off early\nprepossessions, we have found no embarrassments from them since the\ndecision was made. Many things which we feared have proved imaginary,\nand all necessary good has been added unto us; and the truth of God\nhas more abounded toward us. Thus will it be with all them that obey\nGod. \"All his commandments are sure.\" \"No good thing will he withhold\nfrom him that walketh uprightly.\" Its influence upon my religious\nfeelings, and views of divine truth in general, has been to clear up\nsome things that were previously obscure, and give a beautiful harmony\nto the requirements of the law and the doctrines of the Gospel. My\nhope is, when Babylon shall fall, to be found among them who keep the\ncommandments of God and the faith of Jesus. (Rev. 14:12.)\n\n\nTAKING UP THE CROSS.\n\nBY JOSEPH STENNETT.\n\n  Jesus, I my cross have taken,\n    All to leave and follow thee;\n  Naked, poor, despised, forsaken,\n    Thou from hence my all shalt be.\n\n  Let the world neglect and leave me;\n    They have left my Saviour too;\n  Human hopes have oft deceived me;\n    Thou art faithful, thou art true.\n\n  Perish, earthly fame and treasure;\n    Come disaster, scorn, and pain;\n  In thy service, pain is pleasure;\n    With thy favor, death is gain.\n\n  Oh! 'tis not in grief to harm me,\n    While thy bleeding love I see;\n  Oh! 'tis not in joy to charm me,\n    When that love is hid from me.\n\n Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,\n No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.\n\n\n\n\nNo. 11.\n\nReligious Liberty Endangered by Legislative Enactments.\n\nAN APPEAL TO THE\n\nFRIENDS OF EQUAL RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES,\n\nFROM THE SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST GENERAL CONFERENCE.\n\nMDCCCXLVI.\n\n NEW-YORK:\n PUBLISHED BY THE AMER. SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY.\n No. 9 Spruce-Street\n E. G. CHAMPLIN, STEREOTYPER AND PRINTER.\n\n \u261e The Seventh-day Baptist General Conference held its Forty-second\n Anniversary at Shiloh, N. J., on the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 13th days\n of September, 1846. During the session a resolution was passed\n expressing the settled conviction of the Conference, \"that all\n legislation designed to enforce the religious observance of any day\n for a Sabbath, thereby determining by civil law that such day shall\n not be used for labor or judicial purposes, is unconstitutional, and\n hostile to religious freedom.\" A Committee was appointed to prepare\n an Address to the people of the United States in accordance with the\n opinion thus expressed. The following is the Address reported by the\n Committee, approved by the Conference, and referred to the American\n Sabbath Tract Society for publication.\n\n\nFELLOW-CITIZENS:--\n\nWe fully agree with you in the popular sentiment of our nation, that\nliberty is sweet--to men of noble minds, much more precious than\nestates, or treasures of silver and gold--dearer than our reputation\nand honor among the despots of the world. Was it not this sentiment,\nfirmly-rooted in the minds of the Fathers of our National\nIndependence, which led them to stake their \"lives, their fortunes,\nand their sacred honor,\" rather than be the serfs of a British King\nand his aristocratic Lords? Applauding their spirit, we know that you\nwill agree with us in the sentiment, that the preservation of that\nliberty which they achieved and perpetuated in our ever-glorious\nConstitution, is the highest civil duty which we owe to ourselves, to\nour posterity, and to our nation. All but coercionists will agree with\nus, that the preservation of our religious liberty is a sacred duty,\nwhich we owe alike to the cause of truth and our political happiness.\n\nGive us your candid attention, then, while we present a brief\nstatement of the wrongs we are suffering in these United States,\ndespite the principles of the National Declaration of Independence,\nand the guarantees of our National Constitution.\n\nBelieving in the integrity of the provisional Government which made\nthe Declaration of Independence, our fathers and predecessors in\nfaith, fought side by side with yours for the liberty which that\ninstrument declares to be the inalienable right of all men. They were\nequally zealous parties to the adoption of the Constitution of the\nUnited States--that Constitution which says there shall be \"no law\nrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free\nexercise thereof;\" \"and the judges in every State shall be bound\nthereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the\ncontrary notwithstanding.\" Although our brethren at Ephrata, in\nPennsylvania, regarded warfare and the shedding of blood as\ninconsistent with the Christian profession, yet they were no less\nardent admirers of those national instruments by which American\nliberties were asserted and established. Of this they gave ample\nproof, in the unwavering support which they ever voluntarily rendered\nto the National Government and its troops, by all the peaceable means\nat their command. History records an act of patriotism and piety,\nwhich reflects everlasting honor on their names. They voluntarily and\ncompassionately received, at their establishment, between four and\nfive hundred wounded Americans who had fallen in the battle of\nBrandywine, fed them from their own stores, and nursed them with their\nown hands, for which they never received nor asked a recompense of the\nAmerican Government or people. It was enough for them, that they were\ntheir fellow men. But it stirred their hearts the deeper, that they\nknew they were bleeding in the cause of sacred liberty.\n\nWe are the descendants and successors in faith of these parties. We\nhold the same sentiments, and cherish the same principles, which they\ndid at that time. Is it not surprising, then, that within seventy\nyears after the signing of that Declaration, and in little more than\nhalf a century after the adoption of the Constitution, the lineal\ndescendants of these parties, and their successors in faith and\nprinciples, should have their liberties so abridged by state\nauthorities, as to give occasion for an appeal to the citizens of the\nwhole nation, from whom the sovereign power emanates, for a redress of\ntheir wrongs? But so it is. Religious zealots, in our State\nLegislatures and on the Judicial Bench, have violated the Constitution\nof the nation, established an article of their religious creed, and\nmade it penal for others of different sentiments to follow out their\nown honest convictions of duty to God. The consequence is, that eight\nof our brethren are at this moment under judicial sentence for their\nreligious sentiments, and condemned to pay four dollars each, with\ncosts of prosecution, or suffer imprisonment in the common jail. It is\nnot pretended that they have injured the persons, or wronged the\nestates or interests of any of their fellow-citizens. Neither is it\npretended that they are lewd or intemperate persons, or profaners of\nchurches. The only pretence is, that they have injured the religious\nfeelings of some others by peaceably working upon their own farms on\nthe first day of the week, in obedience to the dictates of their own\nconsciences and the law of God. And this is the second time, within\nthe space of one year, that the persecution of these otherwise\nunoffending men, has been approved by the courts of Pennsylvania. In\nfour other States of the Union, in defiance of the National\nConstitution, our fellow-citizens have suffered prosecutions, fines,\nand imprisonment, within the past year, upon similar charges. Beside\nthis, in the States where toleration is provided for labor on our own\nfarms and in our own work shops on the first day of the week, all\ncontracts, legal and commercial transactions, if done even among\nourselves, are declared null and void by the State Statutes. So that,\neven in these States, we are deprived of our constitutional and\ninalienable right to use one-sixth part of our time for commercial,\nlegal, and judicial transactions; and then are tied up to our own\npremises, as though we were as dangerous to the religious interests of\nour fellow-citizens, as rabid animals are to their persons.\n\nApplications were made to three State Legislatures during the winter\nof 1845-6, for relief from these odious statutes. But those\napplications were all repulsed with supercilious denials. Forbearance\nis no longer a virtue. A succession of abuses and usurpations of our\nrights, has compelled us to take measures to resist, with all the\nlegal means in our power, and with all that we can honorably acquire,\nwhatever laws abridge the rights or coerce the consciences of\nourselves or our fellow-citizens on religious or sectarian\nconsiderations. Appealing to Jehovah and his holy law for the\nrectitude of our principles and the righteousness of our cause, we\nhave implored, and shall continue to implore, the interposition of his\nProvidence to succeed our efforts.\n\nWithout wishing to disturb the peace of society, or wantonly to\noverturn the existing order of things, but actuated solely by a sense\nof duty to maintain the integrity of God's law, and preserve unimpaired\nour religious privileges, we appeal to you, fellow-citizens, in\ndefence of the justice of our demands, by a fair representation of our\nConstitutional Rights.\n\nThe sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, section\n2d, says, \"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which\nshall be made in pursuance thereof, ... shall be the supreme law of\nthe land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any\nthing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary\nnotwithstanding.\"\n\nSection 3d says, \"The members of the several State Legislatures, and\nall executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of\nthe several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support\nthis Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a\nqualification to office or public trust under the United States.\"\n\nIn the amendments to the Constitution, article 1st, it is written,\n\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,\nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\"\n\nIn view of these sections of the fundamental law of the nation, what\ncan be more palpably unconstitutional than those State statutes which\nare so framed as to declare and establish the first day of the week as\n\"the Christian Sabbath,\" or holy day. The State statutes which subject\nany citizen to fine or imprisonment for labor, or any legal\ntransaction, on the first day of the week, as far as their influence\nextends, make void God's everlasting law, and subject the\nconscientious servant thereof to punishment for a strict conformity to\nit. The State statutes violate the Constitution of the United States\nin two respects. 1st. They violate that part of the Constitution which\nforbids the enactment of any \"law respecting an establishment of\nreligion;\" because by them the religious observance of the first day\nis made a State establishment of religion as really and arbitrarily as\nthe law of Constantine made it a part of the religion of the Roman\nEmpire. 2d. They violate that part of the Constitution which forbids\nthe making of any law \"prohibiting the free exercise\" of religion;\nbecause, by forbidding labor on the first day of the week, they\nprohibit a strict conformity to the law of God which says, \"Six days\nshalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the\nSabbath of the Lord thy God.\" With this view of the subject, we submit\nit to the common-sense of candid men to say, if every judicial officer\nwho convicts or passes sentence upon his fellow-citizens for\ndisobeying these arbitrary statutes on a charge of Sabbath-breaking,\nis not a perjured man. He swears or affirms to \"support the\nConstitution of the United States, any thing in the Constitution or\nlaws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding;\" yet he administers\na law which establishes a sectarian article of religion, and punishes\nconscientious men for a free exercise of their own religious opinions,\nand for doing what they esteem to be their duty to God.\n\nHeretofore we have asked only for exemptions from these odious\nstatutes for all such as observe the seventh day of the week as the\nSabbath, and we have generally been permitted to pass peaceably along.\nBut of late our growing numbers, and our increasing influence in the\nnation, together with the use of the public press in defence of our\nsentiments, have seemingly made us too odious in the eyes of some of\nour fellow-citizens to be suffered peaceably to enjoy our lights.\nPowerful efforts are being made to inflame the public mind against us,\nto influence the magistracy to enforce the Sunday laws now existing,\nand if possible to procure the enactment of others more stringent and\nrestrictive. These things have thrown us unavoidably upon our\nconstitutional rights. Experience teaches us that our peace and\nliberty are continually jepordized by the existence of statutes which\ncan be so construed as to coerce us, contrary to our consciences, to\ndo reverence to the first day of the week as a holy day. We therefore\ndemand the entire repeal of all laws for coercing the observance of\nthe first day, as being contrary to the spirit and the letter of the\nConstitution of the United States.\n\nThe view which we take of this subject is not from a partial\nconstruction of the Constitution. That instrument has been so\nconstrued by impartial and competent authority. The following extract\nfrom a letter written by GEORGE WASHINGTON, while President of the\nUnited States, and who was President of the Convention for framing the\nConstitution, to a committee of a Baptist Society in Virginia, in\nanswer to an application to him for his views of the meaning and\nefficiency of that instrument to protect the rights of conscience,\ndecides the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and\nconsequently the intent of the Constitution itself. The letter is\ndated August 4, 1789, and reads as follows:--\n\n \"If I had the least idea of any difficulty resulting from the\n Constitution adopted by the Convention of which I had the honor to be\n President when it was formed, so as to endanger the rights of any\n religious denomination, then I never should have attached my name to\n that instrument. If I had any idea that the General Government was so\n administered that liberty of conscience was endangered, I pray you be\n assured that no man would be more willing than myself to revise and\n alter that part of it, so as to avoid all religious persecution. You\n can, without doubt, remember that I have often expressed my opinion,\n that every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable\n alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in\n worshiping God according to the dictates of his conscience.\n\n [Signed,]                                    GEORGE WASHINGTON.\"[10]\n\nThe Congressional Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom\nwere referred certain memorials for prohibiting the transportation of\nmails and the opening of post offices on Sunday, in the 43d session of\nCongress, A. D. 1830, reported unfavorably to the prayer of the\nmemorialists. Their report was adopted and printed by order of the\nSenate of the United States, and the Committee was discharged from the\nfarther consideration of the subject. That Committee take the same\nview of the intent of the Constitution as did General Washington. They\nsay:--\n\n \"We look in vain to that instrument for authority to say whether\n first day, or seventh day, or whether any day, has been made holy by\n the Almighty.\" ... \"The Constitution regards the conscience of the\n Jew as sacred as that of the Christian; and gives no more authority\n to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual,\n than that of a whole community. That representative who would violate\n this principle, would lose his delegated character, and forfeit the\n confidence of his constituents. If Congress should declare the first\n day of the week holy, it would not convince the Jew nor the\n Sabbatarian. It would dissatisfy both, and consequently convert\n neither.\" ... \"If a solemn act of legislation shall in one point\n define the law of God, or point out to the citizen one religious\n duty, it may with equal propriety define every part of revelation,\n and enforce every religious obligation, even to the forms and\n ceremonies of worship, the endowments of the church, and the support\n of the clergy.\" ... \"The framers of the Constitution recognized the\n eternal principle, that man's relation to his God is above human\n legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable. Reasoning was\n not necessary to establish this truth; we are conscious of it in our\n own bosoms. It is this consciousness which, in defiance of human\n laws, has sustained so many martyrs in tortures and flames. They felt\n that their duty to God was superior to human enactments, and that man\n could exercise no authority over their consciences. It is an inborn\n principle, which nothing can eradicate.\" ... \"It is also a fact, that\n counter memorials, equally respectable, oppose the interference of\n Congress, on the ground that it would be legislating upon a religious\n subject, and therefore unconstitutional.\"\n\nImpartial Judiciaries have taken the same view of these provisions of\nthe Constitution, and have declared the laws enforcing the observance\nof the first day of the week unconstitutional, as may be seen in Judge\nHerttell's book, \"The Rights of the People Reclaimed;\" also in \"An\nEssay on Constitutional Reform, by Hiram P. Hastings, Counselor at\nLaw.\"\n\nOn the 2d of October, 1799, at New Mills, Burlington County, New\nJersey, a Seventh-day Baptist being indicted before a Justice of the\nPeace for working on Sunday, and fined, he appealed. At the trial in\nCourt, the foregoing letter from General Washington was produced by\nthe Judge, and read in his charge to the Jury. The result was\nacquittal by the Jury.\n\nIn the year 1845, the Court of Hamilton County, Ohio, made a similar\ndecision in a like case, and on similar considerations.\n\nA Committee of the Common Hall of the City of Richmond, Virginia, to\nwhom was referred the case of certain persecuted Jews, have made a\nlike decision on the municipal laws of that City, which have been\nconstrued to enforce keeping the first day.\n\n_The Post Office Laws_ are framed in accordance with these provisions\nof the Constitution. The Act of March 3d, 1825, section 1st,\nauthorizes the Postmaster to \"provide for the carriage of the mail on\nall post roads that are or may be established by law, and as often as\nhe, having regard to the productiveness thereof, and other\ncircumstances, shall think proper.\" Section 17th provides, \"that every\nPostmaster shall keep an office, in which one or more persons shall\nattend on every day on which a mail shall arrive by land or water, as\nwell as on other days, at such hours as the Postmaster General shall\ndirect, for the purpose of performing the duties thereof; and it shall\nbe the duty of the Postmaster, at all reasonable hours, on every day\nof the week, to deliver on demand any letter, paper, or packet, to the\nperson entitled to, or authorized to receive the same.\" The laws\nagainst labor on the first day, in each State where they exist, are\nobliged to except the mail-carriers and the postmasters. But we ask\nour fellow-citizens to consider by what show of justice, any local\ntribunal can punish a private citizen for doing that on his own\naccount, which the servants and officers of the United States are\ndoing at the same time, for the use of the people, and by a law of the\nsame Government? Suppose a carriage conveying the United States Mail,\nshould enter the City of Philadelphia on Sunday; and another carriage,\ncontaining goods or wares for the next day's market, should enter at\nthe same time and by the same route; with what show of justice shall\nthe driver of the market carriage be put under arrest and fined, and\nthe driver of the mail carriage go free? Or suppose there should be a\npostmaster assorting his letters on the first day, and a\nfellow-citizen selling pens, ink, paper, and wafers, to write the same\nletters, in another part of the same building; with what show of\njustice shall the tradesman be fined and the postmaster go free? The\nofficers of the United States Government have no national rights above\nthe humblest citizen. The transgression of law by them is as really a\ncrime as in the case of any other citizen. Our Government knows\nnothing of those kingly rights which set emperors, monarchs, and their\nservants, above law. If, therefore, there is no transgression of\nconstitutional law in carrying the United States Mail on the first\nday, then there is none in a private citizen following his otherwise\nlawful and peaceable occupation on the same day.\n\nIn some quarters, during the last year, our motives and designs were\ngrossly misrepresented by prejudiced persons, in our legislatures and\nelsewhere. We were represented as \"wishing the legislature to change\nthe Sabbath from the first to the seventh day of the week;\" and were\naccused of \"covertly wishing to compel our fellow-citizens to keep our\nSabbath day.\" No insinuation could be more grossly deceptive--no\naccusation more flagitiously unjust to us as a people. We declare\nunequivocally, that we do not desire any such thing. We believe that\nkeeping the Sabbath day is purely a religious duty. All we ask is,\nthat our State Legislatures leave the matter where the Constitution of\nthe United States and the laws of the General Government have placed\nit. They have no more right to determine this religious duty, than\nthey have to determine the rites of Christian worship. We believe our\nfellow-citizens ought to be protected in the peaceable observation of\ntheir day of religious rest, as in the observance of every other\nreligious institution, except where such observance is made a\nsanctuary for crime. We ask the same protection for ourselves on the\nseventh day of the week, and nothing more.\n\nIf the Constitution may be infringed upon to put down the observers of\nthe seventh day, no one can say how long it will be before other minor\ndenominations may be put down too. Already attempts are making to\nexact a confession of faith, unknown to the Constitution, as a\nqualification for a legal oath. If the religious sanctification of the\nfirst day of the week may be enforced by statutory requirements, so\nmay the forms and hours of worship. He who says, that there is no\ndanger of the latter being enforced, while statutory regulations\nviolate two of the most sacred provisions of the National\nConstitution, knows but little of the history of mankind, or pays but\nlittle attention to the tendencies of human nature. A single standing\nviolation of the Constitution is an example and an authority for\nothers to follow. One religious observance established by law, is the\nadmission of the main principle of national hierarchy, and will come\nin time to be referred to as authority for similar infractions of the\nConstitution. The laws for the observance of the first day are in fact\na union of Church and State. It is not pretended that they are\ndesigned to subserve directly a political or civil object. It is\naltogether a religious object which they subserve. It becomes every\nfriend of equal rights, as he loves the Constitution of his country,\nto oppose these infractions of its just principles, until equal\nliberty is secured to all citizens by statutory provisions, as by the\nfundamental laws of the nation.\n\nOur opponents often remind us of their pretence, that we are under no\nmore restrictions than other citizens; we may do as we please about\nkeeping the seventh day. To this we reply, that the tyrants of the\nRoman people deprived the Republic of its liberties by professing\nthemselves the guardians of their INTERESTS. \"By declaring themselves\nthe protectors of the people, Marius and C\u00e6sar had subverted the\nConstitution of their country.\" Augustus established a despotism by\nartfully affecting to be governed himself by the same laws which he\nprocured to be enacted to take away the rights of the people. These\nare the same principles upon which religious coercionists conjure us\nto be quiet under the loss of our constitutional rights. The progress\nof these things towards despotism is as dangerous in the American\nRepublic as in that of Rome, and may be as rapid. Their success would\nbe as deadly to human happiness, and all the best interests of\nmankind, in the nineteenth century, as they were in the decline and\nfall of the Roman Empire. Human nature now affords no better guaranty\nfor the safety of _our_ national rights, than it did to the Romans at\nthe summit of their greatness. Liberty can be preserved only at the\nexpense of perpetual vigilance, and by the popular support of\nindividual rights. If ever the doctrine which has been urged before\none of our legislative bodies, \"The greatest good of the greatest\nnumber,\" should become a popular political axiom, to justify the\ncourse of the many in taking away the rights of the few, the halls of\nlegislation will become scaffolds for the execution of liberty, and\nthat odious principle will be the shroud in which it will be buried.\nDespots may establish a round of religious observances, and exact an\nunwilling and insincere conformity to their arbitrary prescriptions;\nbut they can never convince the understanding nor win the heart of one\nwho knows the voice of truth. They can only make him a slave, while\nthe effects of their arbitrary prescriptions on the popular mind will\nbe to wither up all interest in the religious tendencies of an\nobservance sustained only by the enactments of heartless politicians.\nAll that makes religion vital and effective for its own holy objects,\nexpires when the sword is drawn to enforce it. Liberty, humanity,\nreligion, and our National Constitution, then, require that the laws\nenforcing the observance of the first day of the week should be\nrepealed.\n\nAs American Citizens, as independent Freemen, and as responsible\nStewards of the glorious heritage bequeathed to us by the Fathers of\nthe Revolution, we shall, with the aid of the Majesty of Heaven,\nmaintain unimpaired the high privileges secured to us by the Charter\nof our Liberties. We ask for no exclusive immunities. We disclaim all\nright of human government to exercise over, or fetter in the least,\nthe religious rights of any being. Might is not right, neither does\nthe accident of being a _majority_ give any, claim to trample on the\nrights of the minority. It is a usurpation of authority to oppress the\nminority, or set at naught their indefeasible rights. In civil affairs\nwe respect the authorities that be, but in religious service, resent\nbeing forced to keep the commandments of men. We recognize the laws of\nthe land in all secular matters, and the laws of God, and of God\nalone, in religious faith and practice. These are the inalienable\nrights of all the members of a Republic. These are rights reserved by\nthe people to themselves, in the formation of our Government, which no\npower can legitimately wrest from us, and with the help of God none\nshall.\n\n[10] This letter was translated into the German at Ephrata, Penn., and\nthe present copy of the letter is probably a re-translation of it into\nEnglish from the German.\n\n\n\n\nNo. 12.\n\nMISUSE OF THE TERM \"SABBATH\"\n\n\nIt is quite common, in these days, to hear the term _Sabbath_ used to\ndesignate the first day of the week or Sunday. But such a use of the\nterm is not only unscriptural, but calculated to mislead the people.\nThroughout the Bible, there is but one sacred day of weekly occurrence\ncalled the Sabbath, and that is the seventh or last day of the week.\nWhen, therefore, men talk about a _Christian_ Sabbath, and a _Jewish_\nSabbath--a _first-day_ Sabbath, and a _seventh-day_ Sabbath--that so\nthey may slily fix the term Sabbath upon the first day, and then\npersuade people that all those texts of Scripture which speak of the\nSabbath day are meant of the first day, they pursue a course which is\nunauthorized, and deserve to be sharply rebuked. There are\ncircumstances, however, which many persons seem to regard as\njustifying the common practice of calling the first day by the name\n_Sabbath_. Let us examine some of them.\n\n1. It is said that the term _Sabbath_ signifies _rest_; therefore the\nfirst day, being commonly observed as a day of rest, may properly be\ncalled the Sabbath. In reply to this, it may be said, that when, by\ncustom and common consent, any term is used to express a particular\nplace or thing, it then becomes a proper name for that thing, and\nsignifies only that thing to which it is applied. For instance, a\n_tabernacle_ means a place of worship. Yet, in New York, where this\nname is used to express a particular and well-known place of worship,\nit would be absurd and false to say you were at the _Tabernacle_, and\nmean the Church of the Messiah. So with the term Sabbath; although the\nword strictly means _rest_, yet after the Scriptures throughout the\nOld and New Testaments have used this term to express a particular\nrest, which occurred on the seventh day, it would be foolish and\ndeceptive to speak of the Sabbath and mean the first day of the week.\nIt may be farther said, that if this argument be good for calling the\nfirst day the Sabbath, and if the fact of its being a _rest_-day makes\nit the Sabbath, then may the Mohammedans properly call the _sixth_ day\nthe Sabbath, and the fact that they rest upon that day makes it the\nSabbath. Yes, and those Mexican Indians, whom Cortes found keeping the\n_fourth_ day, may properly call that day the Sabbath, and directly it\nis made such. Even those people in Guinea, whom Purchase describes as\nhaving a _rest_-day, but which, says he, \"they observe not upon our\nSunday, nor upon the Jews' Sabbath day, but hold it upon Tuesday, the\n_second_ working day of the week,\" may properly call that day the\nSabbath, and straightway it becomes such. Are the observers of the\nfirst day ready to rest upon such ground for calling that day the\nSabbath, or to continue to call it Sabbath when there is no better\nground? We hope not. And we feel bound, as those who respect the\nBible, and dare not charge the Author of that Book with folly in\ncalling the seventh day only the Sabbath, to protest against such\nabuse of the language of Scripture.\n\n2. The second reason frequently urged, is, that the first day _comes\nin the room_ of the seventh day, and may therefore properly be called\nthe Sabbath. Aside from the fact that the Scriptures say _not a word_\nabout a substitution of the one day for the other, it may be said in\nreply, that if the argument be good, then the Lord's Supper may be\ncalled the _Passover_, and King Solomon may be called King _David_.\n\n3. A third reason alledged for calling the first day the Sabbath, is,\nbecause it has long been the practice of Christians to call it so. In\nanswering this assertion, it may be worth while to inquire what has\nbeen the practice of Christians in this matter. Few will deny, that\nwherever, in the New Testament, the word Sabbath refers to a weekly\nreligious day, it is the seventh day. When the _first_ day of the week\nis spoken of, it is under its appropriate title. For nearly the whole\nof the first century, then, we have the testimony of Scripture that\nthe name _Sabbath_ belonged exclusively to the seventh day. During the\nsucceeding four hundred years, there were large numbers, both in the\nEastern church, about Constantinople, and in the Western church, about\nRome, who kept the Sabbath. And when ecclesiastical councils, in the\nfourth and fifth centuries, began to enact laws against them, they\ncondemned Sabbath-keeping altogether. From this it is apparent, that\nthe idea of calling the first day the Sabbath had not then entered\ntheir minds. What day was meant when the term Sabbath was used for\nfive hundred years later still, the learned Dr. Peter Heylyn has told\nus in the following words:--\"Wherever, for a thousand years and\nupwards, we meet with _Sabbatum_, in any writer, of what name soever,\nit must be understood of no day but _Saturday_.\" Indeed, if we search\nall the books which have been written on this and kindred subjects up\nto the time of the Reformation, we shall not find that the first day\nwas to any considerable extent regarded as the Sabbath or called by\nthat name. Dr. Richard Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, in a late work\non the subject of the Sabbath, says, \"in fact, the notion against\nwhich I am contending, [viz. that the fourth commandment binds\nChristians to hallow the first day of the week, and that it may\nproperly be called the Sabbath,] seems, as far as I can recollect, to\nhave originated with the Puritans, not much more than 200 years ago,\nand to have been for a considerable time confined to them, though it\nwas subsequently adopted by some members of our church.\"\n\nSo far is it from being true, then, that the first day has been\nuniversally called the Sabbath among Christians, that even now, by the\nbest authorities upon such subjects, it is not called Sabbath at all.\nThe Records of England up to the present time invariably call the\n_seventh_ day the Sabbath. In the Journals of the House of Lords,\nwhatever is entered as having been done on the seventh day, or\nSaturday, is under the date, _Die Sabbati_, upon the Sabbath day. The\nsame is true of the House of Commons. The Rules and Records of the\nKing's Bench, and the Latin Records in the Court of Exchequer and in\nChancery, do likewise call the seventh day the Sabbath. These things\nmay be known by any who will take the trouble to examine; and they\nshow how groundless and erroneous is the supposition to which we are\nreplying. Indeed, in many languages the seventh day is called by a\nname which indicates its sabbatic character. In Low Dutch it is called\n_rust-dagh_, the day of rest. In English, French, Italian, Spanish,\nPortuguese, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, it has its right name, _the\nSabbath_, the day of rest.\n\nNow let us look at some of the _consequences_ of calling the first day\nby the name of the Sabbath. It has given occasion for Papists to\ncharge Protestants with neglecting the Scriptures to follow their\ntraditions. The Papists claim, that the change of the Sabbath is the\nwork of their own church, and that the Scriptures nowhere warrant the\nkeeping of the first day, much less the calling it by the name of the\nSabbath. Who will deny this latter position? Again, it has led some\nearnest and pious men to charge the teachers of religion with\n\"befooling and misleading the people.\" Proof of this may be found to\nany extent in books writted on the subject in the seventeenth century.\nThe charge is there distinctly and frequently made, of designedly\nusing deceptive arguments.\n\nWe will not undertake to say, that those who are accustomed to speak\nin a manner so likely to deceive, design to do that. But we will say,\nthat such would be the natural effect of their language. It would\nleave upon the minds of many an impression, that they were not only\nbound to pay peculiar respect to the first day of the week, but that\nthe fourth commandment required of them such respect. For a religious\nteacher knowingly to make this impression, is to be guilty of directly\nfostering error. Nay, more; if he should call the first day the\nSabbath, and refer to the fourth commandment as inculcating the duty\nof observing that day; or should, without direct reference to that\nlaw, express himself in such a way as to leave his hearers to suppose\nthat it required the observance of the first day, he would be wanting\nin faithfulness to the truth, and exposed to the denunciation of those\nwho add to or take from it.\n\nNo doubt many will think, that at a time when the prevailing tendency\nis to disregard all sacred seasons, it were better not to say these\nthings, but to leave men under an impression that the law of God\nrequires the observance of the first day of the week, and sanctions\ncalling that day the Sabbath. But this prevailing disregard of the day\nof rest, is an important reason for urging an examination of the\nfoundation upon which the Sabbath rests. Common prudence, to say\nnothing of Christian sincerity, would require us, in such\ncircumstances, to place the duty upon its true ground. If it will not\nstand there, it will stand nowhere. It is a dangerous experiment to\nencourage or connive at misconceptions in a point like this. And even\nif we felt assured that it would be right, we are fully convinced that\nit would be inexpedient. It is exceedingly dangerous to acknowledge an\nunsound principle, although it may promise to conduct us to desirable\nresults, or, at the worst, to produce no bad effects. It ought to be\nremembered, that it was in apparently trivial and harmless points,\nthat those false principles were allowed, which have infused their\npoison into the Romish and other apostate churches--a poison which,\ncommencing with the extremities, has worked its way rapidly towards\nthe vitals, and diffused its effects through the whole system. It is\nnot, then, a matter of small moment. The most important and disastrous\nconsequences may result from baptizing a day of human invention with a\nname which the Scriptures apply exclusively to one appointed of God.\n\n\n\n\n[No. 13.]\n\nTHE BIBLE SABBATH.\n\nBY WILLIAM M. FAHNESTOCK, M. D.\n\n\"WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN.\"\n\n NEW-YORK:\n PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,\n No. 9 Spruce-Street.\n\n\nMost professors of religion, who found their faith on the Word of God,\nattach much importance to a weekly day of sacred rest, however much\nthey may differ in regard to the day to be sanctified as the Sabbath,\nor the manner in which its sacred hours are to be improved. It is not\nthe design of the writer of this small tract, to enter upon the\ndiscussion of the multifarious points of disputation, which have been\nraised by most writers, in treating this question, but simply to\nexhibit the scriptural account of the day to be honored unto the Lord,\nwith some cursory remarks on the prominent topics of the controversy,\nwhich can be, and which ought to be, determined by direct reference\n\"_to the law and the testimony_.\" Without, therefore, any pretensions\nto an extended confutation of men's hypotheses and men's subterfuges\non this subject, he desires merely to present a concise epitome of\n_what saith the Scriptures_ in reference to the day which legitimately\nchallenges our profound veneration and implicit obedience; and will\nrestrict his comments; on the bearings of the sacred text, to as few\nwords as is practicable in a matter of such grave importance; that, in\nembracing and defending so sacred an institution, and in responding to\nthe scriptural interrogation, \"_Who hath required this at your hand?_\"\nthe reader may, confidently and without fear of contradiction, answer,\n\"_The Lord thy God--the Almighty Jehovah!_\" and lay his finger on the\nclear, unequivocal, ungarbled, \"_Thus saith the Lord_,\" for his\npractice.\n\nThe _Scriptures_ tell us, that God \"rested on the _seventh day_ from\nall his work which he had made; and God blessed the _seventh day_ and\n_sanctified_ it.\" Gen. 2:2, 3. This is the first notice of the Sabbath\nin the Bible; and it is the first religious institution established by\nthe Almighty for the benefit of all after generations. The rest of the\ntestimonies of the Lord to the sacredness of his holy day, are like\nunto it, wherever they occur in the _Inspired Volume_.\n\nDuring the sojourn of the children of Israel in the wilderness, the\nLord, to supply their necessities, sent manna daily, save on the\n_seventh day_; thus recognizing strictly his holy Sabbath, by\naffording them a _double portion_ on the _sixth_ day, and requiring\nthem to secure it at that time for the _seventh day_.\n\n \"And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath\n given you to eat. This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded.\n Gather of it every man according to his eating; an omer for every man\n according to the number of your persons, take ye every man for them\n which are in your tents. And the children of Israel did so, and\n gathered, some more, some less. And when they did mete it with an\n omer, he that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had\n gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his\n eating. And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning.\n Notwithstanding, they hearkened not unto Moses, but some of them left\n it until the morning, and it bred worms and stank; and Moses was\n wroth with them. And they gathered it every morning, every man\n according to his eating; when the sun waxed hot it melted. And it\n came to pass, that on the _sixth day_, they gathered _twice_ as much\n bread, _two_ omers for _one_ man; and all the rulers of the\n congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that\n which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath\n unto the Lord; bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that\n ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be\n kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as\n Moses bade; and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein.\n And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is the Sabbath unto the\n Lord; _to-day_ ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall\n gather it; but on the _seventh day_, which is the Sabbath, in it\n there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some\n people on the _seventh day_ for to gather, and they found none. And\n the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments\n and my laws? See, for the Lord hath given you the _Sabbath_,\n therefore he giveth you on the _sixth_ day the bread of _two days_;\n abide ye every man in his place on the _seventh day_.\" Exod. 16:15-30.\n\nThis was _before_ the giving of the law, and is irrefragible evidence\nof respect unto the Sabbath _before the law was promulgated_.\n\nWhen the Decalogue, written on stone by the finger of God, was\ncommitted to the Israelites, the obligation to honor the Sabbath--the\n_seventh day_--was emphatically _renewed_, and most explicitly defined\nand enjoined.\n\n \"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shall thou labor\n and do all thy work; but the _seventh day_ is the _Sabbath_ of the\n Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son,\n nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy\n cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days\n the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and\n rested the _seventh day_; wherefore the Lord blessed the _Sabbath\n day_ and _hallowed_ it.\" Exod. 20:8-11.\n\nThe same is reiterated by the same writer in another place.\n\n \"Six days shall work be done; but the _seventh day_ is the Sabbath of\n rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein; it is the\n _Sabbath of the Lord_ in all your dwellings.\" Lev. 23:3.\n\nThe reader will observe, that this commandment does not ordain a _new_\nand _peculiar_ institution, but _reminds_ the Israelites of one which\nhad been established long prior to their existence as a nation, to be\nhad in remembrance and to be rigidly observed. \"Remember the Sabbath\nday to keep it holy.\" The reader will also observe, that it does not\nsimply appoint _a_ Sabbath, or a seventh part of time to be\nconsecrated as holy time, but that the precise time, the particular\nday, is specifically certified by Jehovah himself--that it is _the\nday_, and not the _institution_, which the Lord blessed and hallowed;\nthat it was not the _sabbatic law_, but the _day of rest_, which was\nenjoined. The law was predicated on the _sanctified day_, not the day\naccommodated to the institution; and that there might be no mistake on\nthe subject, the law defines the day _as it found it_, and assigns\nclearly and most unequivocally the reason for its observance. It aims\nsimply at hallowing the _day_, the precise, particular day; which is\nstill more emphatically expressed in the original, \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea, \"the _day_\nof _the rest_,\" because _in it_, the day, God rested from all his\nwork, and subsequently enjoined like rest, on the same day, and for\nthe same purpose, upon all his people. This Bible truth ought to be\nsufficient to overset all the sophistry of equivocators, in their\nattempts to blind the inquirer, by astutely insinuating the idea, that\nthe _sabbatic law_ only demands the consecration of _a seventh portion\nof time_, which position, they, in turn, as stoutly repudiate, when\nany one sees proper to choose any other seventh part of time than the\nday which they propound for them. To proceed; Nehemiah says:--\n\n \"In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the\n Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves and lading asses; as also wine,\n grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into\n Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; and I testified against them on the day\n wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein,\n which brought fish and all manner of ware, and sold on the Sabbath\n unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with\n the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that\n ye do and profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did\n not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? Yet ye\n bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath. And it came to\n pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the\n Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that\n they should not be opened till after the Sabbath; and some of my\n servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought\n in on the Sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kinds of\n ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against\n them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so again, I will lay\n hands on you. From this time forth came they no more on the Sabbath.\n And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and\n that they should come and keep the gates to sanctify the Sabbath\n day.\" Neh. 13:15-22.\n\nTo turn to the New Testament, our blessed Redeemer proclaimed himself\nLord of the Sabbath, (Mark 2:28,) thereby incorporating it in the new\ndispensation. He also declared most distinctly, that he did not come\nto destroy the law, but to fulfill it; that not one jot or tittle\nshould pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matt. 5:17, 18. Luke\nalso affirms, in reference to the course of the disciples after the\ncrucifixion, that they \"rested the Sabbath day _according to the\ncommandment_.\" Luke 23:56. This was _after_ Christ had declared that\nall his work was _finished_--the new covenant perfected, and he had\nbeen nailed to the tree. This doubtless refers to the commandment to\nobserve the _seventh day_. No one disputes it, as no command was given\nto observe any other day. And from the Acts of the Apostles, we find\nthat they made _it_ the day of their special ministrations of the\nWord, as their Lord and Master had done before them.\n\n \"But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia\n and went into the synagogue on the _Sabbath day_, and sat down. And\n after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the\n synagogue sent unto them saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any\n word of exhortation for the people, say on. Then Paul stood up, and\n beckoning with his hand, said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God,\n give audience.\" Acts 13:14, 15. \"And when the Jews were gone out of\n the synagogue, the _Gentiles_ besought that these words might be\n preached to them the next _Sabbath_. * * * And the next _Sabbath day_\n came almost the whole city to hear the word of God.\" Id. verses 42,\n 44. Paul \"reasoned in the synagogue _every_ Sabbath, and persuaded\n the Jews and the Greeks.\" Id. 18:4, 5.\n\nAll the _promises_, and all the _penalties_ connected with the\nobservance or the desecration of the Sabbath, refer to the _seventh\nday Sabbath_, and to no other _in future_.\n\n \"Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth\n hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth\n his hand from doing any evil.\" Isa. 56:2.\n\n \"If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure\n on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord,\n honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding\n thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then thou shall\n delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the\n high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob\n thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.\" Id. 58:13, 14.\n\n \"Thus saith the Lord: Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on\n the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither\n carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither\n do ye any work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your\n fathers. * * * And it shall come to pass, if ye diligently hearken\n unto me, saith the Lord, to bring in no burden through the gates of\n the city on the Sabbath day, but hallow the Sabbath day to do no work\n therein, then shall there enter into the gates of the city, kings and\n princes, sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on\n horses, they and their princes, the men of Judah and the inhabitants\n of Jerusalem; and this shall remain forever. * * * But if ye will not\n hearken unto me, to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden,\n even entering at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then I\n will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the\n palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.\" Jer. 17:21, 22,\n 24, 25, 27.\n\nNo where in the Inspired Word have we any other weekly Sabbath\nappointed. No where has that Sabbath ever been _abrogated_ or\n_superseded_. No where in the Scriptures is any other day called the\nSabbath-day. No where is any other day _required_ to be observed _as\nthe Sabbath_. If, then, HE, the Almighty, gave the _seventh day_, and\nsanctified and hallowed it _as his Sabbath_, and has not abrogated\nit--has not absolved us from its duties, nor delegated authority to\nothers to do so--it remains in as full force as when first instituted\nby Jehovah himself, and will stand in the Judgment against all the\ncrafty inventions and futile subterfuges of perverse, rebellious man.\n\nThe foregoing summary is a plain, unvarnished, unmutilated _scriptural\naccount_ of God's rest-day, which HE enjoined on all mankind, for all\nages, for all nations, tongues, and kindred. Some persons, nay, the\ngreat mass of the Christian world, have been taught, that the Sabbath\nalluded to is a \"_Jewish Sabbath_,\" and \"_has been done away_;\" in\nproof of which position, they adduce the passages in Paul's Epistle to\nthe Colossians--\"Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in\ndrink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the\nSabbath-_days_, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is\nof Christ.\"[11] Col. 2:16, 17. \"Who blotted out the hand-writing of\nordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it\nout of the way, nailing it to his cross.\" Col. 2:14. This, I must\nremark, proves _too much_; for if it has abrogated the seventh-day\nSabbath, it has blotted out the sabbatic law also; unless it be shown,\nthat _it_ is reserved, or that another has been re-enacted, clearly\nand expressly ordained. If so, let its advocates point to a single\nrequirement, an unequivocal injunction, to observe any other day as\nthe Sabbath, and it will terminate all controversy on the subject. The\n\"hand-writing of ordinances,\" which was \"nailed to the cross,\" was\nmerely \"the ceremonial law,\" the onerous burdens of the Levitical\nritual, not the \"moral law of commandments\"--the Decalogue! If the\nopposite view be correct, then the Sabbath, or any \"rest-day,\" is\n\"against us,\" contrary to our nature and wants, and is not for our\ngood, and ought to be annulled and obliterated forever. Then, also, we\nare driven to the doctrine of the \"Friends,\" that all days are alike\nholy under the gospel dispensation. The advocates for the first day of\nthe week can not consistently escape this dilemma. They must accept\nthe Sabbath hallowed by the Lord, or hallow all days alike.\n\nMuch as man has attempted to obscure and pervert this holy\ninstitution, the Word of Truth is clear, express and emphatic, in\nregard to the perpetuity of the particular day to be hallowed, as well\nas it is explicit in the precise time to be sanctified. The Scriptures\nno where speak of a \"_Jewish Sabbath_\" or a \"_Christian Sabbath_.\" The\nSabbath of the Bible is but one, and has but one name--\"_the Sabbath\nof the Lord thy God_;\" which the Scriptures declare is the _seventh\nday_, instituted more than two thousand years before there was a Jew\nin the world, and, consequently, could not have been a \"Jewish\nSabbath.\" The Sabbath, Christ, who is \"Lord of the Sabbath,\" asserts,\n\"was made for man\"--the whole race of man--not for a particular nation\nor people, but for _mankind at large_.\n\nIt is proper here to remark, that this sneering at the \"_Jewish\nSabbath_,\" which in times past was, and still is, by weak minds,\nconstantly resorted to, in the absence of legitimate argument, to\nprejudice the populace against giving this subject a fair and\nimpartial examination, and thereby to lead them to prejudge the case,\nhas, within a few years past, been abandoned by all sensible and\nconsistent advocates for the _sabbatic institution_. They find that it\nstultifies their own pretensions, and has done much damage to\nthemselves in sustaining the claims of sacredness for any other day;\nfor, while they maintain that the ancient Sabbath was a Jewish\ninstitution, they unwittingly prove that there is no longer any\nSabbath to be observed, since they fail to show that another has been\nordained or established for the Christian Church. If a \"Jewish\nSabbath,\" it was done away with by the Jewish dispensation; and if no\nother Sabbath has been expressly appointed by Divine authority, the\nChristian Church is certainly left without the Sabbath, or any\nsubstitute possessing any of its sacredness--a sacredness which can\nonly be derived from an _express_ and _explicit_ mandate from the Lord\nof the Sabbath. That puerile quibble, the _nick-name_ \"Jewish\nSabbath,\" has, therefore, been abandoned by the most prominent writers\nof the present day; who generally fall back and found the\n_institution_ (the origin and grounds for its perpetuity) long\nanterior to the \"Jewish,\" the Mosaic dispensation--even back to the\nSabbath of Paradise. Thus Dr. Barnes, of Philadelphia, in a series of\nsermons on this subject, delivered and published in the fall of 1845,\nadvocates this position, and contends strenuously for the _ante-Mosaic\nSabbath_. The same view was inculcated by the \"National Lord's Day\nConvention,\" held at Baltimore, November, 1844; and it has been\nreiterated more distinctly and emphatically by \"The Rhode Island\nSabbath Union,\" in an address to the people of that State, in 1846, to\nwhich, among others, we find attached the name of Dr. Wayland, the\nhonored President of Brown University. The Committee of the Rhode\nIsland \"_Sabbath_ Union,\" in calling attention to the _claims of the\nSabbath_, remark:\n\n \"The Lord of the Sabbath has here said, '_The Sabbath was made for\n man_.' Man is here used, most certainly, as a _generic_ term, and,\n therefore, presents a universal proposition. The Sabbath was not made\n for _man_, for man as a genus, as a race, unless it was made for\n every individual of the race; for the first, and for the last man;\n for the first generation, and for every other. The Sabbath, then,\n must have existed from the beginning, and is as old as the human\n race. Our Lord says, moreover, '_The_ Sabbath was made for man.' He\n says not, the Jewish Sabbath, or the Christian Sabbath, but _the_\n Sabbath, the common, the universal one, which belongs to mankind. Is\n this not the very language to denote a universal and perpetual\n institution?\n\n \"Let us look at the connection of the Sabbath with the work of\n creation. 'God blessed the _seventh_ day and sanctified it.' If the\n Creator had merely _rested_ on the seventh day, it would have been an\n impressive consecration. But when he proceeds to bless and sanctify\n it, there is authority, a positive Sabbath, forming a part of the\n primeval arrangement, when God fixed the order in which the world\n should go--six days labor and one day rest, over and over forever.\n The first week of the world, then, was not completed till there had\n been a Sabbath, as well as a first day or a sixth. Is not this\n indicative of the universality and perpetuity of the institution?\"\n\nHere we might rest the question, with perfect safety, if the mass of\nmankind would be content with the plain teachings of the Bible; but,\nhaving \"itching ears,\" they, unfortunately, are too apt to leave \"the\nlaw and the testimony,\" and cleave to \"the commandments of men;\" which\nteach them, that \"_Christ_ OR _his Apostles_\" have transferred the\nsacredness of the seventh day to the first day of the week. The\nwriter, therefore, feels constrained to bring before his readers the\npassages on which that notion is predicated, to exhibit the weakness\nof their untenable position, and thereby establish the Sabbath of the\nBible.\n\nWhat saith the Scriptures to support the claims of the first day of\nthe week to be _holy time_? The first notice we have of the disciples\nbeing together on \"the first day of the week,\" on which the assumed\n\"change\" is predicated, is found in the Gospel by John:--\n\n \"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when\n the doors were shut _for fear of the Jews_ (mark that!) came Jesus\n and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And\n when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then\n were the disciples _glad_ when they saw the Lord.\" John 20:19, 20.\n\nThis passage contains no command, no intimation whatever, to sanctify\nthat day. It does not even claim that they were there for any sacred\npurpose, much less to celebrate the Sabbath, or institute a new day of\nworship, but simply for common protection, \"for fear of the Jews;\" and\na design to comfort them in their trepidation is all the legitimate\ninference we can draw from the circumstance of Christ's appearing unto\nthem. All the Apostles were not together; _Thomas was absent_! If they\nhad met together to _sabbatize_, he, certainly, would have been with\nthem. Not having been present, and not having seen the risen Saviour,\nwhile doubting and disputing on the subject of his resurrection,\n\"_eight days afterward_,\" Christ appeared again, to confound the\nincredulity of Thomas, and for no other ostensible purpose.\n\n \"Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when\n Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen\n the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the\n print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not\n believe. And after _eight_ days the disciples _were within_,[12] and\n Thomas with them: then came Jesus, _the door being shut_, and stood\n in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then said he to Thomas,\n Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy\n hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but\n believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my\n God.\" John 20:24-28.\n\nSo much, _and that is all_, is the authority adduced by the advocates\nfor the sacredness of the first day for Christ having changed the day\nof rest, the Sabbath, or having given his sanction to the change.\nOught such a vague _inference_ overturn the fiat of the\nAlmighty--change times and laws ordained by Jehovah to endure forever?\nIs the \"being together,\" save one, of the twelve, \"for fear of the\nJews,\" and \"being within eight days afterward,\" any evidence of their\nbeing there to celebrate the \"Sabbath\" or Lord's day? Is there, in\nthese transactions, any re-enactment of the sabbatic law, which some\npersons maintain was abrogated by the \"blotting out of the\nhand-writing of ordinances?\" Is there any injunction issued by\nthem--the apostles--requiring the disciples to honor, hallow, and\nsanctify the first day of the week, in any of the above proceedings?\n\nThe next Scripture assumed for the substitution of the first day of\nthe week in the place of the Sabbath of the Lord, is found in the Acts\nof the Apostles:--\n\n \"And upon the first _day_ of the week, when the disciples came\n together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on\n the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight. And there were\n many lights in the upper chamber where they were assembled together.\n And there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus, being\n fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk\n down with sleep, and fell from the third loft, and was taken up dead.\n And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him, said, Trouble\n not yourselves, for his life is in him. When he, therefore, was come\n up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while,\n even till break of day, he departed.\" Acts 20:7-11.\n\nIt is necessary to a proper understanding here, to bear in mind--1st.\nThat it was the custom of the disciples, in the days of the apostles,\nto meet together, and break bread, _every_ day. \"They continued\nsteadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of\nbread, and in prayers.\" \"And they, continuing _daily_ with one accord\nin the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their\nmeat with gladness and singleness of heart.\" 2d. That in those times a\nday was counted \"the evening and the morning were the first day.\"\n\"From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths.\" Lev. 23:32.\nThus it appears, by this passage, that they had simply met, as was\ntheir uniform, daily custom, to celebrate the breaking of bread on the\nevening (the commencement of the day), it being the last evening Paul\nwas to be with them; and in all probability the circumstance would not\nhave been noticed so particularly, but to introduce the case of\nEutychus, in confirmation of Paul's miraculous powers. The passage\ndoes not prove any thing for the sacredness of the first day of the\nweek, but proves much against it; for, if the first day of the week is\nholy time, Paul, in preaching till midnight, and departing on the\nmorrow, would be a Sabbath-breaker for traveling on that day. He would\nhave kept the evening only. \"From _even_ unto _even_ shall ye\ncelebrate your Sabbaths.\" The same disregard for the sacredness of the\nfirst day of the week was manifested by the Redeemer himself, in\ntraveling on the \"resurrection day\" to Emmaus, a distance of seven and\na half miles, while a \"Sabbath-day's journey\" was restricted to _one\nmile_: slender evidence, indeed, of the Saviour's having transferred\nthe holiness of the _Sabbath_ to \"the first day of the week,\" or\nhaving \"sanctioned\" it, as is often claimed by its advocates.\n\nThe next passage adduced is found in Paul's First Epistle to the\nCorinthians--\"Upon the first _day_ of the week, let every one of you\nlay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no\ngatherings when I come.\" 1\u00a0Cor. 16:2. First _day_? Day is not in the\noriginal, but is supplied, and is so designated by being italicized.\nSo the true reading is, \"In the first of the week.\" However, if it\nmean the first day, Sunday, it makes it a commercial day, a day of\nbusiness, a day of reckoning, not of _rest_, as it requires a man to\ncast up his accounts, to find what amount he can \"lay by.\"\n\nThe last text, and the one most relied upon, is from John's\nRevelation--\"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day.\" Rev. 1:10. There\nis nothing in this passage, or in the context, to indicate that it was\nthe first day of the week. It is a mere _assumption_, without any\nScripture to fortify the position. The best biblical critics admit\nthat there is no scriptural evidence to identify the expression with\nthe first day of the week. If we follow the Protestant rule, to prove\nScripture by Scripture, and not evade the plain teachings of the\nBible, it will be an easy matter to see a much more apt application of\nthe expression. Many of the best commentators suppose that it alludes\nto the Gospel-day. \"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see _my day_; he\nsaw it, and was glad.\" John 8:56. Was not this a day which\napproximates (if it will not be admitted to be identical) not only in\n_idea_, but in a _kin-name_--the _day of Christ_--the Gospel-day? Paul\nspeaks of it as something yet to come. \"That ye may approve things\nthat are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense, till\nthe _day of Christ_.\" \"Holding forth the word of life, that I may\nrejoice in the _day of Christ_, that I have not run in vain, neither\nlabored in vain.\" \"Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye\nmay be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.\" \"Now, we\nbeseech you, brethren, by the _coming_ of our Lord Jesus Christ, and\nby our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in\nmind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as\nfrom us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.\" \"That the spirit may\nbe saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.\" Phil. 1:10; 2:16; 1\u00a0Cor. 1:8;\n2\u00a0Thess. 2:1, 2, 3; 1\u00a0Cor. 5:5. Again, it is maintained by some\nexpounders, that allusion is had to the Judgment Day. \"The day of the\nLord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall\npass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent\nheat; the earth also, and all the works therein, shall be burned up.\"\n2\u00a0Peter 3:10. Therefore John, in saying, \"I was in the spirit on the\nLord's day,\" simply asserts, that in prophetic vision his spirit\nreached forward to the great day for which all other days were made,\nand beheld the momentous transactions of that awful crisis, which he\nwas directed to reveal to the churches on earth.\n\nFrom this brief examination, it appears, that the term \"Lord's day,\"\nas here used, does not refer to any particular day of the week. But if\nit refer to any special day of the week, as some suppose, it must\nrefer to the seventh; for that is the sanctified, hallowed _rest-day_\nof the Bible, and is the only day which the Lord calls his holy day\n(Is. 58:13), and therefore must be the Lord's day. If, however, the\nterm \"Lord's day,\" used by John, does not refer to the gospel day, or\nthe day of judgment, nor to the Lord's \"holy day,\" the seventh-day\nSabbath, but alludes to a festival day to commemorate the\nresurrection, as is assumed, where is the command requiring it to be\nkept holy? And where is the evidence in the Scriptures, that it was\nkept _as the Sabbath_, or in _place of the Sabbath_?\n\nEven were there any intimations given by the prophets or the apostles,\n(which we deny,) that the resurrection day should be regarded as the\n\"ceremony-worship-day\" under the gospel dispensation, where is the\nevidence in the Scriptures that the first day of the week is or was\nthe resurrection day? It is assumed, not proved. The Bible and human\ntheories are at conflict on this subject. It is generally assumed,\nthat the Redeemer was crucified on Friday, and rose early on Sunday\nmorning. This makes Christ a liar; for he said, \"As Jonas was _three\ndays_ and _three nights_ in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man\nbe _three days_ and _three nights_ in the heart of the earth.\" Matth.\n12:40. Crucified on Friday, and rising on Sunday morning, would make\nbut part of three days, and only two nights. Christ said three days\n_and_ three nights, and he certainly must be right. Therefore,\ncrucified on Friday, he could not have risen on Sunday. The New\nTestament does not assert that he rose on the first day of the week;\nit only says, that he was _seen_ on the first of the week, not first\n_day_. In all the places in which allusion is had to this matter,\n(Matth. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19), the original\nsays, in the first of the week--_day_ is not once named, but is\nsupplied in our version, as is indicated by being italicised. But even\nif the term first of the week implies first day, the Scriptures no\nwhere assert that he _rose_ on that day. Being _seen_, and _rising_,\nare two entirely different matters. So is a _part_ of three days and\ntwo nights different from three days and three nights. If Jesus had\nsaid, \"_three days and nights_,\" it might not involve the present\ndifficulty; but no one questions that Jonas was three whole days and\nthree whole nights in the whale's belly. Then, as the Redeemer makes\nthat the simile of his own confinement in the heart of the earth, the\nantitype, to be verified and accredited, must be like unto the type.\nHe must have been there the _three days_ and the _three nights_,\naccording to his word. It is vain presumption, arrant blasphemy, to\nmake it any less to gratify a human theory. Let God be true, though it\nmake all men liars.\n\nIn the absence of all direct _scriptural evidence_ to sustain the\nassumption, that the first day of the week is the \"_resurrection\nday_;\" and in the absence of all such evidence, that the Lord designed\nto elevate the first day of the week to the special regard of the\nChristian Church, and confer upon it the sacredness of the ancient\nSabbath; would we not, at least, have some intimation of it in the\nwritings of the prophets, in which all the important circumstances of\nthe Redeemer's life and mission are foreshadowed? Where, reader, will\nyou find any thing in them that predicts any _change_ of the _holy\nSabbath_ to the _resurrection day_? If found, let it be adduced. The\nSabbath is a standing monument against _Atheism_, for all ages,\ndeclaring the workmanship of God; yet some _assume_, that as\n_redemption_ is a greater work, and a more important work, than the\n_creation_ of the universe and the living _souls_ which inhabit all\nthe spheres, therefore the _resurrection day_ ought to be honored as\nthe _rest-day_. Has not the _Lord_ the right to determine this matter?\nIf HE deemed it important that the _resurrection day_ be thus\ndistinguished, would HE not have _declared it_, expressly, unto us?\nWould HE have left us to _infer_ it? Can we, will we, be justified in\ncasting aside the _explicit_ command of the Most High, in this matter,\nto substitute our _fancied_ day of greater _importance_ than the one\nthe _Almighty_ has _ordained_? \"Wherefore kick ye at _my_ sacrifice\nand at _mine_ offering, which I have commanded?\" 1\u00a0Sam. 2:29. \"It is\nhard for thee to kick against the pricks.\" Acts 9:5.\n\nIf, then, there is no evidence in the Scriptures, that the _first day\nof the week_ is the \"_resurrection day_,\" (which, even if\nsatisfactorily established, would not invalidate our position, nor\nentitle it to supersede the holy Sabbath); and, more particularly, if\nthere is no evidence in the Inspired Volume, that the term \"Lord's\nday\" is intended to designate the _first day of the week_; we are\nreduced, by every principle of reasoning, to regard the _seventh\nday_--the Heaven-heralded Sabbath--as the only \"Lord's day,\" the only\n\"rest-day,\" sanctified and hallowed by the Almighty as holy time.\n\nAll days, in one sense, are Lord's days; but there has never been but\none _Heaven-appointed_ weekly _Sabbath_, and that, most unequivocally,\nis the _seventh day_. \"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy\"--\"the\n_seventh day_ is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.\" Ex. 20:8. If that\nsacred injunction has been abrogated, we should expect--(for it would\nbe unreasonable to recognize its repeal or transfer, without as\nexplicit and as authoritative a mandate from the Court of Heaven)--at\nleast a _re-enactment_ somewhat thus: \"_From the resurrection of the\nLord Jesus, ye shall no longer_ SABBATIZE, _but shall give heed to the\nassembling of yourselves_ ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK; _in it ye\nshall do no work; and, to avoid the appearance of symbolizing with my\nancient people, the Jews_, call it no longer the _Sabbath_, but\ndesignate it by the term _Lord's day_!\" Is there any intimation of\nsuch an _abrogation_, or such a _transfer_ of the _sacredness of the\nSabbath_ to _Sunday_, in the _inspired volume_? Not the semblance of\nit. Even if the early disciples, without any intimation from the _Lord\nof the Sabbath_, but _of their own accord_, chose to set apart a\nspecial day as a _festival day_, as they were wont to do for _martyrs_\nand _saints_, it can not, certainly, _supersede_ the _institution of\nJehovah_; neither can they confer upon it the sacredness belonging, by\nthe _decree of the Most High_, to _his rest-day_. Indeed, this is so\nevident, that the erudite and frank NEANDER expressly says,\n\"_Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday_,\nvery early, indeed, into the place of the _Sabbath_ ... Sunday was\ndistinguished as a _day of joy_, by the circumstance that men did not\nfast upon it, and that they prayed standing up, and not kneeling, as\nChrist had raised up fallen man to heaven again through his\nresurrection. The _festival of Sunday_, like all other festivals, _was\nalways only a_ HUMAN ORDINANCE; and it was far from the intention of\nthe apostles to establish a _divine_ command in this respect--far from\nthem, and from the early apostolic church, to _transfer the laws of\nthe Sabbath to Sunday_. Perhaps at the end of the second century, _a\nfalse application of this kind_ had _begun_ to take place; for men\nappear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a\nsin.\"[13]\n\nSuch, then, is the scriptural account of the Sabbath, and such the\nfrank admission of one of the most distinguished ecclesiastical\nhistorians, who could have no motive in perverting or misrepresenting\nthe facts in the case, but who has always shown himself above all mean\nsubterfuges for any purpose whatever. His testimony might be fortified\nby many names of high authority among writers of eminence, who do not\ncontend for sabbatizing on the seventh day, yet whose candor and\nhonesty constrain them to make the like admission.\n\nThus it will be seen, that the observers of the seventh-day Sabbath\ncan look up with full confidence of having a \"thus saith the Lord\" for\ntheir practice; while the observers of the first day of the week must\nconfess, with confusion of face, that they are but following \"the\ncommandments of men,\" and can only plead \"the nakedness of the\nFathers,\" as Whitby terms their inconsistencies. Will the Lord admit\nsuch a \"vain oblation?\" Will he suffer such a perversion of his holy\ninstitution to go unreproved? Where, reader, can you find in the Bible\nany authority for appropriating the title of the holy rest-day, the\nSabbath, to the first day of the week? If you can not, is it not\n\"robbing God\" thus to falsify his Word? Is it not base felony every\ntime any worm of the dust thus perversely uses the term which HE, the\nSovereign of the Universe, has attached to his holy day--thereby\nwantonly \"changing times and laws\"--overturning the decrees of the\nLord God? Is it not wresting the Word to your own destruction? If the\nLord charge man with robbery in withholding perishable tithes and\nofferings, and curse him for that delinquency, how much greater, think\nye, must be the condemnation of those who set at naught his\nprerogative to institute and ordain the service of the sanctuary? He\nalone has the right to impose religious ordinances; and it is but the\nreasonable service of his creatures to obey, implicitly, his righteous\nmandates--the sacred injunction, to hallow and sanctify his holy\nSabbath. \"Will a man rob God?\" asks the Almighty, through his prophet;\n\"yet ye have robbed me, saith the Holy One. Ye are cursed with a\ncurse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.\" Mal. 2:8, 9.\nWhere, then, will you find your excuse for this perversion of the Word\nof God, when that Word shall come to judge you? for it is the Word,\nthe written Word, (given to be a lamp unto your feet and a light to\nyour path,) which shall judge you at the last day. Of old it was said,\n\"From the days of your fathers ye are gone astray from mine\nordinances, and have not kept them.\" Mal. 3:7. The apostle of the\nGentiles speaks of those in his day who corrupted the Word. 2\u00a0Cor.\n2:17. In another place it is asked, When wilt thou cease to pervert\nthe right ways of the Lord? Acts 13:10. To which interrogation all are\nobnoxious who seek out inventions of their own, or follow \"the\ncommandments of men,\" which subvert the testimony of the Lord.\n\nCanst thou, reader, contend with the Almighty? It is a fearful thing\nto fall into the hands of the living God, when he shall lay judgment\nto the line, and righteousness to the plummet, and shall _sweep away\nthe refuge of lies_. Isaiah 28:17. The _true principle_, reader, and\nthe only _safe principle_, is, to \"_let God be true_, though it _make\nevery man a liar_.\" Rom. 3:4. \"Ye are my friends,\" says Christ, \"if ye\ndo whatsover I command you.\" John 14:15. \"He that saith, I know him,\nand keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in\nhim.\" 1\u00a0John 2:4. \"In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine\nthe commandments of men.\" Matt. 15:9. \"What thing soever I command\nyou, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from\nit.\" Deut. 13:32. \"Turn not from it to the right hand or to the left.\"\nJosh. 1:7. \"Add not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be\nfound a liar.\" Prov. 30:6. \"If any man shall add unto these things,\nGod shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and\nif any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall\ntake away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,\nand from the things that are written in this book.\" Rev. 22:18, 19.\nPonder well this subject, reader, and render unto God the things that\nare God's, that it may be well with thee, and thou be admitted into\nthe rest reserved for those who \"delayed not to keep the\ncommandments\"--for those who keep his covenant and walk in the way of\nthe Lord.\n\n[11] The Sabbath was no type of Christ--a _shadow_, of which Christ\nwas to be the _body_. It was instituted before the _transgression_;\nconsequently, the term _Sabbath-days_, here, has no relevancy if\napplied to the _weekly_ Sabbath; but it evidently alludes to the\n_festival days_ among the Jews, usually called _Sabbaths_, as all the\nIsraelites had at those periods to _refrain from labor_--\"such as the\nfestivals of the Passover, Pentecost, the Feast of Tabernacles, &c.,\n&c., which are alluded to in Leviticus, 19:3-30. _Keep my\nSabbaths._\"--CALMET.\n\n[12] _Within_ does not imply that they were assembled at any public\nplace _for worship_, or to celebrate a _holy day_. _Within_ may simply\nmean, that they were together in the place of their common\nlodgment--where they abode together.\n\n[13] The History of the Christian Religion and Church during the First\nThree Centuries. By Dr. Augustus Neander. Translated by Henry John\nRose, B. D. New York, 1848, p. 186.\n\n\n\n\nNo. 14.\n\nDELAYING OBEDIENCE.\n\n\nTo have the understanding enlightened in regard to duty, and the\nconscience so thoroughly awake as to make one feel uneasy in the\nneglect of it, and yet to be surrounded with advisers, wearing the\nname and title of Christians, who are continually urging farther\ndelay, is about as uncomfortable a position as a person of fervent\npiety needs to be placed in. To rebuke such advisers in the\nfaithfulness of the gospel, and yet, at the same time, to behave\ntowards them with becoming meekness, is not the easiest thing in the\nworld. Nevertheless, the idea that we may postpone our obedience to\nGod for a little season, notwithstanding our convictions, is not to be\ntolerated.\n\nSuppose, for example, that a person becomes convinced, that it is his\nduty to observe the Sabbath of the Bible--the seventh day of the week.\nForthwith he is assailed by his associates with the suggestion, that\nhe ought not to be in a hurry--that he ought to take plenty of time\nfor consideration, at least a year. Plausible as such advice is, we\noffset it with a simple passage of Scripture. \"I thought on my ways,\nand turned my feet unto thy testimonies; I made haste, and delayed not\nto keep thy commandments.\" Ps. 119:59, 60. Here the Psalmist\ntestifies, that he turned his feet to obedience, so soon as, by\nthinking on his ways, he found that he was walking astray. He made no\ndelay about it; he did not go about to consult the wise men of the\nnation; he did not examine the writings of the rabbis and doctors, to\nsee if there was not some way of getting round the duty, he _made\nhaste_ to render obedience. But, now-a-days, as soon as a person's\nconscience begins to lash him for neglected duty, he is advised to be\nvery careful about running too hastily. Well, we would not wish one to\nbe _too_ hasty; but, on the other hand, it may be well to consider\nwhether there is not such a thing as being _too tardy_. Conviction of\nduty is not to be trifled with. When any one does violence to his\nconviction, he feels that he disobeys God; and such disobedience is\nsure to be followed by disastrous results. The voice of conscience\ngrows more feeble, and (if the disobedience be persisted in) becomes,\nat length, hushed in silence. It may continue to reprove with regard\nto other duties, but with regard to that particular one which has been\nmade the object of willful neglect, it reproves no more. As a\nnecessary consequence, the soul suffers the loss of all those\nblessings which obedience in that one thing would bring.\n\nNor is this all. Conscience, having yielded to corruption in one\ninstance, becomes ready to yield in another. Its sternness has been\novercome, and it no longer guards the soul with that security which it\nhad been wont to do. It is to the soul what the sense of modesty is to\nthe female; and, as the female cannot allow her sense of delicacy to\nbe trifled with without incurring the risk of a total loss of virtue,\nso the conscience cannot, in a single instance, be abused, without\nincurring the danger of becoming \"seared with a hot iron.\" We will not\nundertake to say, that this is, in every case, the result; but we _do_\nsay, that there is great danger of it. We insist, therefore, that when\none understands what is duty, he ought to lose no time in putting it\nin practice. Let him remember, too, that the wrath of God is revealed\nagainst those \"who hold the truth in unrighteousness.\" Rom. 1:18.\n\nBut the possibility that one may be mistaken as to his duty, is often\nurged as a reason for delay. There may be something in this; at least,\nit seems plausible. Generally, however, this objection is more\nspecious than solid. At all events, it is so with regard to those\nthings which are the subject of direct and unequivocal command. With\nregard to the Sabbath, we have no hesitation in saying, that it savors\nof \"the wisdom that is earthly.\" The object of those who urge it is to\ninduce a deference to the views of those who have acquired great skill\nin explaining away the divine law. But we hold, that however doubtful\nmay be the teachings of Scripture with regard to such questions as are\npurely doctrinal, or however obscure the language in which its\nprophecies foretell coming events, with regard to the common,\npractical duties of life, the Word of God is so plain that there is no\nneed for a child to be mistaken. Were it otherwise, it would be\nunsuited to the wants of mankind. For, inasmuch as every one must give\naccount for himself, and not another for him, it is necessary that\neach one should be able to decide his duty for himself. People of\nsmall intellectual capacity must be able to make this decision, as\nwell as those of more expanded powers; and children, as well as those\nof mature age. Hence duty must be revealed in very simple language.\nAnd how simple the language in which our duty to keep holy the Sabbath\nday is revealed! \"_Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy--the\nseventh day is the Sabbath._\" Who can fail to understand it? What\nuntutored peasant cannot comprehend it? What child does not perceive\nits meaning? The command to refrain from the adoration of images is\nnot more plain. Yet, when a person of ordinary mental powers is\nconvinced by it, and begins to think about rendering obedience,\nstraightway he is admonished that he does not understand it, and that\nhe would do well to consult some learned men, some spiritual rabbis or\ndoctors of divinity, before taking any decided steps!\n\nAnd what do the learned doctors say, upon being consulted? Why, that\nit is the duty of men keep holy the first day of the week. But how do\nthey make it appear? Do they produce any precept from the Scripture,\nplain and unequivocal, like the fourth commandment? Not by any means.\nThey can present nothing which is level to the comprehension of a\nchild. Whatever they say on the subject, is entirely above the\nunderstanding of children, and entirely above the understanding of\nignorant people. They talk about the magnitude of redemption, as\ncompared with the work of creation; they have something to say about\nredemption being finished on the first day of the week, by the\nresurrection of Christ from the dead; they lay a few such theological\npropositions together, and finally draw out the inference, that the\nfirst day of the week is a holy day. But the plain, ordinary mind,\ndoes not understand this. The child fails to comprehend it. It is\ntrue, he hardly dares to indulge the thought that learned men may be\nmistaken; nevertheless, he is puzzled, extremely puzzled, to\nunderstand it. Is not this conclusive proof, that no such duty is\nenjoined in the Book of God?\n\nWe cannot, therefore, subscribe to the idea, that a person must, in\nreference to the Sabbath, or in reference to any other plain command\nof Heaven, wait to consult friends, and learned teachers, and the\nwritings of fallible men, before rendering obedience. If God has\nspoken, \"see that ye refuse not him that speaketh.\" We do not believe\nthat any one can begin to obey God too soon.\n\n Published by the AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,\n No. 9 Spruce-street N. Y.\n\n\n\n\n[No. 15.]\n\nAN APPEAL FOR THE\n\nRESTORATION OF THE BIBLE SABBATH:\n\nIN AN ADDRESS TO THE BAPTISTS,\n\nFROM THE SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST GENERAL CONFERENCE.\n\n NEW YORK:\n PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,\n No. 9 Spruce-Street.\n 1852.\n\n\nTHE ADDRESS.\n\n The Seventh-day Baptist General Conference, to the Members of the\n Baptist Denomination throughout the United States, holding to the\n Observance of the First Day of the Week as a Divine Institution:\n\nBELOVED BRETHREN:--\n\nWhen our Divine Redeemer dwelt on earth, he prayed that all his\ndisciples might be \"made perfect in one.\" As this prayer was in\nharmony with the sure word of prophecy, which instructs us to look for\na time when \"the watchmen shall see eye to eye, and sing with united\nvoice,\" we are sure that it will ultimately be answered. We see\nnothing, however, to warrant us in looking for such a happy\nconsummation, while we contemplate the multiplied divisions of the\nChristian world, perpetuated as they are by the selfishness of human\nnature. Here the prospect is dark indeed. But we have an unshaken\nconfidence in the power of God to bring about his own purposes,\nnotwithstanding all the devices of men. \"The hearts of all are in his\nhands, and he turneth them whithersoever he will.\" He that made \"the\nmultitude of one heart and of one soul,\" in the first age of the\nchurch, can again concentrate his scattered bands, break down every\nwall of separation, and enlighten every mind by the effusion of his\nSpirit. Then shall Zion move forth, \"clear as the sun, and terrible as\nan army with banners.\"\n\nWe rejoice, brethren, that you, as well as ourselves, are looking for\nthis day of glory. Moreover, we have knowledge of your firm\npersuasion, that this glorious union of the now scattered forces of\nIsrael, can be effected only upon the basis of divine truth. With a\nsingle glance you see the fallacy of that reasoning, which calls upon\nyou, for the sake of union, to sacrifice the least particle of God's\nWord. Taught by the Spirit of God, you have learned that the smallest\natom of truth is more precious than fine gold. That meager piety which\nfinds \"non-essentials\" in the appointments of Jehovah, you cannot\nabide. Your language is, \"We esteem ALL thy precepts concerning ALL\nthings to be right, and we hate EVERY false way.\"\n\nWe know, moreover, that it is the desire of your hearts, that all\ndissensions between Christians should be for ever ended. For this\nobject you are laboring and praying; and while you are doing so, you\nhave the enlightened conviction, that your labors and prayers will be\nsuccessful, in proportion to the amount of truth with which your own\nminds are imbued, and which you can bring to bear upon the minds of\nothers. Laboring as you do to expound to others the way of the Lord\nmore perfectly, we cannot suppose that you are yourselves unwilling to\nlearn. We therefore approach you with confidence, affectionately and\nearnestly requesting you to take into consideration the subject which\nis the only ground of difference between you and us. In our\nestimation, it is a subject of great importance; and though some of\nyou have made it a matter of thought, we are persuaded that the great\nbody of your denomination have dismissed it without any particular\ninvestigation. Indeed, we speak not unadvisedly when we say, that on\nthis question the whole church of God have been hushed to sleep. In\nurging it upon your attention, we think you will not charge us with\nwishing to raise disturbance in Zion. We indulge the hope that you\nwill impute to us the same disinterestedness of motive by which you\nyourselves are actuated when you boldly proclaim your denominational\nsentiments upon every high place, and scatter your publications in\nevery direction. Your course springs not from any wish to foment\ndisturbance, but from the pain which your hearts feel to see the\ninstitutions of Christ made void by the traditions of men. Our action\nin this matter springs from the same principle. We feel in regard to\nthe Sabbath just as you do in regard to baptism. We declare before God\nand the Lord Jesus Christ, that we are moved by a desire for your good\nand God's glory.\n\nWhen we look over your large and influential denomination, we find\nthat, in reference to the subject upon which we now address you, you\nare divided into about three classes. I. Those who, acknowledging the\nperpetuity of the Sabbath law, enforce the observance of the Sabbath\nby the fourth commandment, but change the day of its celebration from\nthe seventh to the first day of the week. II. Those who see the\nimpossibility of proving a change of the day, and therefore regard the\ncommandment as abolished by the death of Christ. But, at the same\ntime, they consider the first day of the week as an institution\nentirely new, to be regulated as to its observance wholly by the New\nTestament. III. Those who consider neither the Old nor the New\nTestament to impose any obligation upon them to observe a day of rest,\nand advocate one merely on the ground of expediency.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI. To those of you who acknowledge the obligation of a Sabbath, but\nchange the day of its celebration from the _seventh_ to the _first_\nday of the week, we would say, that while from the Law only you infer\nany obligation to sabbatize at all, yet make the particular time of\nsabbatizing to stand upon New Testament authority, we do not see how\nyou can relieve yourselves from the charge of departing from the great\nprinciple contended for by Baptists, viz. That whatever is commanded\nby an institution, is to be learned from the law of the institution,\nand not from other sources. On this principle, you reject the logic of\nPedobaptists, who, while they find the ordinance of _baptism_ in the\nNew Testament, go back to the law of _circumcision_ to determine the\nsubjects. You tell them, and very justly too, that the _law_ of the\ninstitution is the _only rule_ of obedience. But do you not fall into\nthe same error when the argument has respect to the Sabbath? We can\nsee no more fitness in applying the law of the Sabbath to the first\nday of the week, than in applying the law of circumcision to the\nsubjects of baptism. For the law of circumcision was not more\nexpressly confined to the fleshly seed of Abraham, than was the law of\nthe Sabbath to the seventh day of the week. The true principle is,\nthat every institution is to be explained and regulated by its own\nlaw. Therefore, if the first day of the week is an institution binding\nupon us, the law to regulate its observance should be looked for where\nwe find the institution. Be pleased, brethren, to review this\nargument, and see if you are not treading on Pedobaptist ground.\n\nIn justification of this change of the day, we often hear you plead\nthe example of Christ and his apostles. But where do we find any thing\nto this effect in their example? Did the apostles _sabbatize_ on the\nfirst day of the week? Did the churches which were organized by them\ndo so? Observe, the question between you and us is NOT, Did they _meet\ntogether_ and _hold worship_ on that day? BUT, Did they _sabbatize_?\nthat is, Did they REST FROM THEIR LABOR on the first day of the week?\nDid they observe it AS a Sabbath? This is the true issue. We have\noften asked this question, but the only answer that we have received\nhas been, _that they assembled for worship_. But this is not a candid\nway of meeting the point. It is in reality an answer to a very\ndifferent question from the one we ask. Brethren, act out your own\nprinciples. Come up fairly to the question. When you ask a\nPedobaptist, Did Christ baptize or authorize the baptism of little\nchildren? you expect him to make some other reply than, \"_He put his\nhands on them, and prayed_.\" When you ask, Did the apostles baptize\nunconscious babes? you are not well pleased with the reply, _They\nbaptized households_. Your question was with regard to _infants_--the\n_baptism_ of them. If, therefore, when we ask you, Did the apostles\nand primitive Christians _sabbatize_ on the first day of the week? you\nmerely reply as above, we do not see but you are guilty of the very\nsame sophistry you are so ready to charge upon your Pedobaptist\nbrethren. Your adroit evasion of the real question seems to place you\nmuch in the same predicament as were the Pharisees, when Christ asked\nthem whence was the baptism of John. It appears as if you reasoned\nwith yourselves, and said, \"If we shall say they _did_ sabbatize on\nthe first day of the week, the evidence will be called for, and we\ncannot find it; but if we shall say they did _not_, we fear the day\nwill lose its sacredness in the eyes of the people.\" We do not by any\nmeans wish to charge you with a Pharisaic lack of principle, but we\nput it to your sober judgment, whether your position is not an awkward\none. Brethren, reconsider this point, and see if you are not on\nPedobaptist ground.\n\nIf the apostles did not sabbatize on the first day of the week, then\nit follows, as a matter of course, that, whatever notoriety or dignity\nbelonged to that day, they did not regard it as a substitute for the\nSabbath. Consequently, unless the Sabbath law was entirely abrogated\nby the death of Christ, the old Sabbath, as instituted in Paradise,\nand rehearsed from Sinai, continues yet binding, as \"the Sabbath of\nthe Lord thy God.\"\n\nBut more than this. Even if it could be proved, that the apostles and\nprimitive Christians _did_ actually regard the first day of the week\n_as a Sabbath_, it would not follow that the old Sabbath is no longer\nin force, unless it could be proved that they considered the new as a\nSUBSTITUTE for the old; or, that so far as the particular day was\nconcerned, it was of a CEREMONIAL character. But where do we find\nproof for either of these points? In the whole record of the\ntransactions and teachings of the apostles, where do we find this idea\nof _substitution_? No where. Where do we find evidence that, so far as\nthe _particular day_ was concerned, it was _ceremonial_, and therefore\nto cease at the death of Christ? No where. The argument that proves\nthe _Sabbath law_ not to be ceremonial, proves the same of the _day_.\nDid the _Sabbath law_ originate in Paradise, when man was innocent,\nand had no need of a Redeemer? So did the _day_. It was then\nsanctified and blessed. Does the _Sabbath law_ take cognizance of the\nrelation on which all the precepts of the moral law are founded, viz.\nthe relation we sustain to God as _creatures_ to _Creator_? So does\nthe _day_. It is a memorial of this relation, and of the rest entered\ninto by God after he, by his work, had established the relation. It\nappears, then, that neither the _Sabbath law_, nor the _day_ it\nenjoins, was of a ceremonial character. True, it is not _moral_, in\nthe strictest sense, but rather _positive_. Nevertheless, by divine\nappointment it is in the same category with the moral law, and must be\nconsidered a part of it. If this reasoning is correct--and if it is\nnot, we hope you will point it out--it would not follow that the old\nSabbath is done away, because Christ and his apostles sabbatized on\nthe first day of the week; but only that there are _two_ Sabbaths\ninstead of _one_.\n\nBut could Christ or his apostles consistently alter the law of the\nSabbath? In all his ministry, Christ acted under the _appointment_ of\nthe Father, and according to such _restrictions_ as were contained in\nthe law and the prophets. By those restrictions, no laws were to be\nset aside at his coming, except such as were peculiar to the Jewish\neconomy; such as \"meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal\nordinances, imposed until the time of reformation.\" Heb. 9:10. To set\naside these, the law gave the Messiah an express grant. Heb. 10:9. But\nthe very moment he should attempt to go beyond the limits of that\ngrant, he would destroy all evidence of his being the Messiah promised\nand appointed. For it was by his exact conformity to the law, that his\nclaims were established. Hence, early in his ministry, he declared\nthat he \"came not to _destroy_ the law or the prophets.\" Matt. 5:17.\nMost cheerfully do we recognize him as God over all, and blessed\nforever; yet we are well satisfied that, even in virtue of his\ndivinity, he could not consistently set aside any laws except those\nwhich were \"a shadow of things to come.\" Otherwise we should have God\n_denying_ himself--God _contradicting_ himself! The New Testament\nrecords not a single instance of his claiming a right to do so. When\nhe avowed himself Lord of the Sabbath, he only claimed to determine\nwhat was the proper method of keeping it--what were breaches of it,\nand what were not. The Sabbath was made _for_ man, and consequently it\nwas his prerogative to decide what acts and duties answered to the\nnature and design of the institution. _Therefore_, the Son of Man is\nLord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:28.\n\nIn regard to the obligation resulting from apostolic example, it\nappears to us that you have fallen into some errors. We are not\nconvinced that the example of the apostles can be justly pleaded for\nany thing else than the order and arrangement of the _church_. However\nproper it may be to imitate them in other respects--in the duties of\nthe moral law, for instance--yet, if it were not known to be proper,\nindependent of their example, we cannot suppose their example would\nmake it so. We must first ascertain, by some settled and infallible\nrule, whether their practice is worthy of imitation. In regard to the\nordering of _church affairs_, there can be no doubt, for they were\nsent upon this very errand, with the promise of the Holy Spirit to\nqualify them for the work. But the Sabbath is not a _church\nordinance_. It is not an institution for the church _as such_, but for\n_all mankind_. All reasoning with reference to it, from apostolic\nexample, must therefore be very inconclusive. Even if we should admit\nthat the _church_ is bound by such example to regard the first day of\nthe week, yet this is the utmost extent to which our admissions can\ngo. We cannot see how the institution becomes binding upon the world\nat large. Consequently, we are compelled to maintain, that an\ninstitution which was originally given for all mankind, remains\nunaltered. We are willing that the example and practice of the\napostles should regulate the _church_ as to its ordinances and\ngovernment, and herein we claim to follow them as strictly as you do;\nbut when they are pleaded for any thing more, we want first to know\nwhether they conform to the express law of God. Otherwise we must\nconsider them as no more binding than an apostle's quarrel with\nBarnabas. Acts 15:39.\n\nIf this argument is well founded, we are led to a very satisfactory\ndisposal of a question often proposed, viz., Why do we never read in\nthe New Testament of Christian assemblies being convened _as such_ on\nthe Sabbath? For if the Sabbath be not a _church ordinance_, but an\ninstitution for mankind at large, it can be of no importance for us to\nknow what Christian assemblies _as such_ did with regard to it. All\nthat is of real importance for us to know, is the precise bearing of\nthe institution upon man _as_ man--upon man _as_ a rational and\naccountable creature. On this point the information is clear and\ndecisive.\n\nThe controversy between us and you appears to be brought down to a\nvery narrow compass. _Did the Apostles and primitive Christians\nsabbatize on the first day of the week?_ And, _Is it the duty of all\nmen to imitate their example, or only the_ CHURCH? If, upon a solemn\nand prayerful consideration of this subject, you are persuaded that\nthere is no proof that the early Christians regarded the first day as\na Sabbath, (substituted in place of the seventh,) and will honestly\navow your conviction, we have no fear that the controversy will be\nprolonged. For, should you still be of opinion that some sort of\nnotoriety was attached to the day, and that Christians met for\nworship, we shall not be very solicitous to dispute the point. The\napostolic rule, \"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,\"\nwill then govern us. See Rom. 14:5, 6. Our concern is not that you\nkeep the first day of the week, but that you keep it _in place of the\nSabbath_, thus making void the commandment of God. If once you\ndiscover, that Sunday is not the Sabbath by divine appointment, and\ntherefore cannot be enforced upon the conscience, we are persuaded\nthat your deep sense of the necessity of such an institution, will\nsoon bring you to the observance of the one originally appointed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nII. But we proceed to address those of you who regard the sabbatic law\nas having been nailed to the cross, and consider the first day of the\nweek as an institution entirely new, regulated as to its observance\nwholly by the New Testament.\n\nYou, whom we now address, are exempt from some of the inconsistencies\nwhich we have exposed; but your theory labors under very serious\ndifficulties, and is to be regarded, on the whole, as more obnoxious\nto the interests of religion, than the one we have been considering.\n\nAccording to your position, the New Testament recognizes no Sabbath at\nall. Do not start at this charge. That it is repugnant to your\nfeelings, we allow. You have never thought of any thing else than\n_entire abstinence from labor_ on the first day of the week. It is\nyour day of _rest_, as well as _worship_. But on what ground do you\nmake it a day of rest? What _example_ have you for doing so? What\n_law_ of the New Testament requires you to lay aside all your secular\nbusiness? As sin is the transgression of the law, and where no law is\nthere is no transgression--1\u00a0John 3:4, Rom. 4:15--how do you make it\nappear to be sin to work on the day in question? It is by the\ncommandment that sin becomes exceeding sinful. Rom. 7:13. By what\ncommandment do you make it appear sinful to work on Sunday? These are\nquestions of the highest importance.\n\nNow suppose one of your brethren attends public worship on the first\nday of the week, and--to make his conformity to what is supposed to be\napostolic example as perfect as possible--participates in the breaking\nof bread. He then goes home, and labors diligently till the day is\nclosed. By what law will you convince him of sin? Not the law of the\nSabbath as contained in the Decalogue, for that, you hold to be\nabolished. Not any law of the New Testament which says, \"Keep the\nfirst day of the week holy; in it thou shalt not do any work,\" for\nthere is no such law. Not the law of apostolic example, for there is\nno proof that the apostles ever gave such example. The very utmost\nthat you can with any show of reason pretend of their example is, that\nthey met together for worship and breaking of bread. To this example\nyour brother has conformed to the very letter--who can say he has not\nin spirit also? What now will you do with him? \"The Bible, and the\nBible only, is the religion of Protestants.\" The Bible, therefore, is\nthe Rule by which he is to be tried. Convict him of sin by this Rule,\nif you can.\n\nBut the case becomes still more difficult, when you come to apply it\nto those who are without the pale of the church. We have already\nseen, that apostolic example concerns merely the ordering and\narrangement of the _church_. Attempt now to convince the unbeliever of\nsin in working on the first day of the week. In order to do this,\ncharge apostolic example upon him. What is his reply? \"I know not,\"\nsays he, \"that I am bound to imitate them in this matter. How does it\nappear that I am? I will admit, for argument's sake, that they\ncelebrated the resurrection on Sunday by religious worship; but they\nalso broke bread and partook of it by way of celebrating his death. If\ntheir example binds me in one particular, why not in the other? Prove\nto me,\" says he, \"that any but the church assembled on the first day\nfor worship, and I will do so too. But in the absence of all such\nproof, I must conclude that their example has nothing to do with me;\nunless, indeed, you can make it appear, that their example and\npractice were in conformity to some law, which commanded them as\nrational creatures, independent of their relation to Christ and his\nchurch. When you can produce that law, then I shall feel bound to obey\nit, and imitate the apostles in their obedience to it; but not till\nthen.\" Such is the reasoning by which an unbeliever may set aside all\nyour attempts to charge sin upon him. Where, brethren, is your law\nwhich, like a barbed arrow, pierces the very soul, and fastens guilt\nupon the conscience? Where is that law which speaks out its thunders,\nsaying, \"Thus saith the Almighty God, the Lord, the Maker of heaven\nand earth, It is the Sabbath day; in it thou shalt not do any work?\"\nTo throw aside the law, which cuts and flames every way, reaching soul\nand spirit, joints and marrow, in order to deal with the ungodly by\nmere apostolic example, is like muffling the sword, lest it should\ngive a deadly wound. Apostolic example is indeed powerful with those\nwhose hearts have been made tender by the Spirit of God, but with\nothers powerless.\n\nWe are persuaded, brethren, that your conscientious scruples about\nlaboring on the first day of the week, never resulted from the mere\ncontemplation of apostolic example. Such example, it is true, is all\nthe law you acknowledge; but this is the theory you have adopted since\nyou came to maturity, and began to think for yourselves. Your scruples\nhave an earlier and different origin. They commenced with your\nchildhood, when you were taught to consider the day as holy time. It\nwas then carefully instilled into your mind, that God had, by express\nlaw, forbidden you to desecrate the day, and that you would incur his\ndispleasure in case you should do so. The idea was then imbibed, that\nif you did not keep the day, you would violate the fourth commandment.\nThis idea has grown with your growth, and strengthened with your\nstrength. It has obtained such commanding influence over your\nfeelings, that you cannot comfortably forbear keeping a day of rest,\nthough your theory does not require it. Even to this day a strong\nimpression rests upon your minds, that the fourth commandment contains\nmuch of moral excellence--too much to be thrown altogether away,\nnotwithstanding your system of theology teaches its abrogation. Such\nis the true secret of your tenderness of conscience. Apostolic example\nhas in reality nothing to do with it. Following the secret monitions\nof conscience, your prosperity is promoted in spite of your\ntheological system. But sound reason discovers, that your experience\nand your theory are in opposition to each other. Some of the more\nthinking ones among you are aware of this, and are continually aiming\nat such a modification of their theory, that their experience will\nharmonize with it. But be assured, that there will be an everlasting\nconflict, till you are brought to acknowledge fully and heartily the\nclaims of the sabbatic law.\n\nWe are aware of that system of theology which regards the New\nTestament as furnishing the only code of laws by which men are bound\nsince the death of Christ. We have looked at this doctrine with\nattention; and so far as the order, government, and ordinances of the\n_church_ are concerned, we admit its truth. As the laws and ordinances\nof the _Jewish_ church were determined by the _Old_ Testament, so the\nlaws and ordinances of the _Christian_ church are determined solely by\nthe _New_ Testament. Therefore, we should say at once, the argument is\nyours, if the Sabbath were a church ordinance. In such case, however,\nnone but the church has a Sabbath. But the question is not concerning\nchurch ordinances. In these we follow the New Testament as closely as\nyourselves. The question is concerning an institution which has\nrespect to mankind at large--to man _as_ man; for the Saviour teaches\nus that the Sabbath was made _for_ man. Now, it will be a very hard\nmatter to prove, that when men as rational creatures are concerned,\nthe only code of laws by which they are bound is the New Testament.\nLet us put the matter to the test. How will you prove that it is\nunlawful for a man to marry his sister, his daughter, or any other of\nnear kin? The New Testament utters not a word on the subject. It is\nnot enough to say, It is implied in the law which forbids adultery;\nfor it must first be proved to be a species of adultery to do so. Nor\nwill it do to say, The common sense of mankind is a sufficient law on\nthe subject; for the moment we suppose that its unlawfulness is to be\ndetermined in this way, we abandon the argument that the New Testament\nis the only code of laws, and resort to the common sense of mankind as\nfurnishing a part of the code. But if the common sense of mankind\nshall furnish a part of the code by which we are bound, who shall\nundertake to say how large a part? Besides, on this principle, the\nbook of divine revelation is not complete and perfect. It is a lamp to\nour feet only in part, and the common sense of mankind makes out the\ndeficiency! You are, therefore, driven to take your stand again upon\nthe New Testament. Finding you there again, we repeat the question,\n_How do you prove by your code that a man may not marry his sister?_\nIt is impossible. You must, of necessity, look to that division of the\nScriptures usually called the Old Testament; for the New says not one\nword about it.\n\nLet us turn now to the 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus, and we\nshall find a collection of laws exactly to the point. \"None of you\nshall approach to any that is near of kin to him,\" &c. v.\u00a06. The\ndegrees of kindred are then expressly marked. Will it be objected,\nthat these laws were given particularly to the Jews, and to no other\npeople? We admit they were given to the Jews, as indeed was the whole\nsystem of revelation in that age; but we cannot admit that they\nconcerned no other class of people. For it is expressly shown in that\nchapter, that the matters of which they took cognizance, were regarded\nas abominations in the Gentiles. Because of such things, the fierce\nwrath of Jehovah came down upon the Canaanites, and they were cast out\nfrom the land as loathsomeness. v.\u00a024, 30. If these things were viewed\nas abominable in the Canaanites, they surely were not _ceremonial_\npollutions. They were not mere _Jewish_ laws. The fallacy of the\ndoctrine is therefore sufficiently exposed.\n\nWe think you have fallen into error concerning the nature and design\nof that division of the Scriptures commonly called the New Testament.\nWe regard it not as the _Law Book_ of mankind, in the strict and\nproper sense; but rather as a _Treatise on Justification_, or an\n_Expose of the Way of Salvation_, in which are contained such\nreferences to the law, and such quotations from it, as are necessary\nto the complete elucidation of the subject. The preparation of this\ntreatise was of necessity delayed until the great Sacrifice for sin\nhad been offered, and our High Priest had entered into the holy place.\nFor, as the sacrifice and intercession of our High Priest constitute\nthe sole foundation of our justification, so \"the way into the holiest\nof all was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet\nstanding.\" Heb. 9:8. So much of the plan of salvation was illustrated\nto the people, as could be by means of the ritual service; and that,\ntogether with the prophecies, laid a foundation for them to _believe_\nthat, _in some way or other_, they would be just before God. So that\nby _faith_ the patriarchs were justified. Heb. 11. They knew it was to\nbe _somehow_ through the work of Him who was typified and promised as\nthe great Redeemer. But they could not understand the plan until the\nRedeemer came and died for them.\n\n_Because_ this expose of the way of salvation could not be made until\nafter the death of the High Priest, _therefore_ it was not proper to\norganize gospel churches. The only church that was suitable for that\nage was found in the Jewish nation, and from its very nature was unfit\nfor the world at large. It was, therefore, confined to that people.\nMoreover, because it was not proper to organize gospel churches until\nthe way of salvation was fully laid open, it was also not proper to\nlay down the laws and ordinances of the church until that time. This\naccounts for the laws of the church being found only in the New\nTestament.\n\nNow, if the New Testament is to be regarded as an exhibition of the\nway of salvation, with such references to the Old as are necessary for\nthe elucidation of the subject, rather than as the Law Book for\nmankind at large, the idea that the Sabbath ought not to be looked for\nin the Old Testament falls to the ground. Nevertheless, to some minds\nit appears strange, that while the New Testament writers mention all\nthe other duties of the Decalogue, this of Sabbath keeping is\napparently omitted. In speaking of the sins of which Christians were\nguilty before their conversion, not one word is said about Sabbath\nbreaking, though upon other sins they dwell with emphasis. But this\nadmits of a very easy solution. Those writers addressed two classes of\nconverts--those from among the Jews, and those from among the\nGentiles. As to the former, they were already rigid to an extreme in\nkeeping the Sabbath. All that was necessary to do in their case, was\nto vindicate the institution from Pharisaic austerities, and determine\nwhat was lawful to be done, and what was not lawful. This was done by\nChrist. But as for the Gentile converts, to charge them with having\nbeen guilty of the sin of Sabbath breaking in their state of\nheathenism, would have been manifest impropriety. For the Sabbath\nbeing for the most part a _positive_ rather than a _moral_ precept, it\ncould not be known without a revelation. But as the Gentiles had no\nrevelation, this is a good reason why the apostle dwelt not upon this\nsin to charge it upon them, but only upon those which were more\nobviously breaches of the Moral Law. Thus it appears, there was no\nnecessity for any more particular mention of the Sabbath to be made in\nthe New Testament than what is made.\n\nBut it is not our object in this Address to cover the whole field of\nargument. We design simply, by presenting some of the strong points,\nand exposing your inconsistencies, to stir up your attention to the\nsubject. We are sure that the great majority of you have never given\nit a thorough investigation. For a complete discussion of the whole\nground, we refer you to our publications. Will you read them? Will you\nanxiously inquire, What is truth? Will you pray over the matter,\nsaying, \"Lord, what wilt thou have us to do?\" Or, will you sleep over\nit, as if it were of no great practical importance?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIII. But we must address that class of Baptists who consider neither\nthe Old nor the New Testament to impose any obligation to observe a\nday of rest, and advocate one merely on the ground of expediency. In\nsome sections of our country, Baptists would consider it almost a\nslander upon their denomination to intimate that there were persons\namong them of such anti-sabbath principles. But any one who is\nconversant with the order at large, knows very well that it is true.\nThere are those who boldly avow such doctrine, and many others who do\nnot deny that it is their real sentiment, though they are not forward\nto proclaim it upon the house-tops. Whether this class embraces a very\nlarge proportion of the denomination, it is not necessary to inquire.\nIt is our impression, that the proportion is sufficiently large to\njustify an effort for their conversion to right views of Divine Truth.\n\nIf there is no day of rest enjoined by divine authority, and the\nobservance of one rests wholly upon expediency, we see no reason,\nexcept that the voice of the multitude is against it, why you cannot\nas well observe the _seventh_ as the _first_ day of the week. There\nwould be no sacrifice of conscience in so doing, while it would be a\ntribute of respect to those who feel that the keeping of the seventh\nday is an indispensable part of duty. But it is not on this principle,\nparticularly, that we desire you to change your ground. Feeling that\nit is not _our party_ that must be honored, but rather _divine truth_,\nand our party only _for the sake of_ the truth, we would much rather\ncorrect your doctrinal views.\n\nOf course, you do not deny that a day of rest was once enjoined upon\nGod's chosen people. It is only under the gospel that you suppose all\ndistinction of days to be annihilated. If, then, it is _expedient_\nthat a day of rest should be observed, it follows irresistibly, that\nthe annihilation of all distinction in days, by the gospel, was very\nINEXPEDIENT! And thus, whatever blessings the gospel dispensation\nbrings to the human race, a strict following out of its principles\nwould be INEXPEDIENT! And, farther, that the _law_, which enjoined a\nday of rest, had more of an eye to expediency than the _gospel_ has!\nConsequently, that the gospel, though declared to be _faultless_, and\ncapable of _perfecting_ those who believe, must nevertheless, FOR\nEXPEDIENCY'S SAKE, borrow a little help from the abrogated rites of\nthe law! In other words, God, in setting aside a day of rest,\ncommitted an oversight, and left his work for man to mend! Brethren, we\nsee not how it is possible for you to escape such monstrous conclusions.\nThey are the legitimate result of your principles--principles which\nyou must have adopted without considering where they would land you.\nFor we are not disposed to believe you so completely destitute of\npiety, as willingly to abide by the result of them. We entreat you to\nreconsider them, and adopt such as are more in accordance with the\nspirit of our holy religion.\n\nWhen you advocate the observance of a day of rest on the ground of\n_expediency_, we are persuaded that you do so in view of the bearing\nyou perceive it to have upon the well being of mankind. But still the\nquestion will arise, Has the gospel less regard to the well being of\nmankind than the law had? Look at the humanity of the sabbatic\ninstitution. How necessary that both man and beast should rest one day\nin seven. How evident that they cannot endure uninterrupted toil. How\nperfectly well established, that, if doomed to constant labor, they\nsink under the premature exhaustion of their powers. So well is this\nestablished, that we cannot put such a low estimate upon your judgment\nas to suppose it necessary to enter upon any proof of it. But the\nquestion returns, Does the gospel breathe less humanity than the law?\nOr, consider the bearing of the institution upon the interests of\nreligion. It affords opportunity for men to be instructed in the great\nthings which pertain to their salvation; and if there were no Sabbath\nto call them away from their labors, it would be impossible to bring\nreligious instruction into contact with their minds. Does the gospel\nafford less advantage in this respect than the law did? Did the law\nprovide a season for instructing the people in religion as it _then_\nstood? and does the gospel provide no season for instructing them in\nreligion as it _now_ stands? Must they be instructed in _types_, but\nnot in the _substance_?--in _prophecy_, but not in the _fulfillment_\nof prophecy? No one will be responsible for the affirmative of these\nquestions.\n\nIf the New Dispensation actually has abrogated the Sabbath, we do not\nbelieve that it is _expedient_ to observe it. We cannot believe,\nhowever, that an institution so important to the civilization,\nrefinement, and religious prosperity of mankind, has been abrogated.\nWe refer you to our publications, and to the publications of those who\nhave, in common with us, defended the perpetuity of the sabbatic law;\nand we entreat you to reconsider your ground. The doctrine of\nexpediency! What a fruitful source of corruption has it been to the\nchurch of God! There is not an anti-christian, popish abomination, but\nwhat pleads something of this kind. Do, dear brethren, let it be\nexpunged from your creed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBRETHREN OF THE BAPTIST DENOMINATION: You are a great and growing\npeople. Your influence is felt throughout the length and breadth of\nour land. We rejoice in your prosperity. \"May the Lord make you to\nincrease and abound in love one towards another, and toward all men.\"\nIn your prosperity we behold, in a measure, our own. Your baptism is\nour baptism. Your church government is our government. Your doctrinal\nprinciples are ours; and there is nothing which constitutes any real\nground of separation, except the great and important subject we now\nurge upon your attention.\n\nThe popularity you have gained as a denomination, however, is not\nowing to your Sabbath principles. It is founded entirely on your views\nconcerning the initiating ordinance of the gospel. These views are\ncharacterized by that perfect simplicity which marks every divine\ninstitution. Hence you have won the affections of the common people,\nwhile, if you had attempted to operate on them by a more complicated\ntheory, failure would have been the result.\n\nThis induces us to urge upon your notice the _exceeding simplicity_ of\nthe Sabbatarian argument, compared with all those theories which stand\nin opposition to it. It is adapted to persons of weak capacities, of\nwhom there are thousands in the kingdom of Christ. Any illiterate\nperson can open the Bible, and point to chapter and verse, saying,\n\"The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.\" This is plain;\nhe can understand it. But tell him that redemption was a much greater\nwork than creation; that redemption was finished by the resurrection\nof Christ; that an event so important ought to be commemorated; and\nthat, in order to do this, the day of the Sabbath was changed from the\nseventh to the first day of the week; for all which there is not a\nsingle \"thus saith the Lord;\" nothing but the uncertain deductions of\nhuman reason. Can he understand it? No. It requires an elevation of\nintellect which God has not given him. The inferences and deductions\nare beyond his capacities. How then is he to render an _intelligent_\nobedience? If he conform his practice to the theory thus set before\nhim, it will not be because he understands it, but because he is\nwilling to trust the guidance of his mind to those who, he thinks,\nknow more than he does himself. This, therefore, is strong internal\nevidence that the keeping of the first day is not of God. For God's\nBook is adapted not only to those of elevated intellect, but to the\nignorant and rude. Every thing concerning our practice is plain even\nto wayfaring men. Were it otherwise, we should conclude that the Bible\nis not an inspired production. If it did not come down to the\ncapacities of all, we should infer that it was not made by Him who\nmade all minds. Indeed, it would not, in such case, be a _revelation_\nto all, but only to the more talented. But it is a revelation to\n_all_; and he that obeys God, must do it for himself; he that repents\nand believes, must do so for himself; and at the great day, every one\nof us shall give account for himself unto God. It is of the highest\nimportance, therefore, that every one know _for himself_ the\nfoundation of his faith and practice.\n\nIn thus urging the simplicity of the argument for the Sabbath, we are\nbut doing what you do in regard to Baptism. Compare the cases. A man\nof considerable intellect can reason from the Abrahamic covenant, lay\npropositions together, and draw inferences and deductions, until,\nfinally, he makes it pretty clear to his own mind, that the children\nof the flesh, these are the children of God; Paul to the contrary\nnotwithstanding. But how is it with some good old Baptist sister, who\ncan hardly join two ideas together, and draw a logical inference from\nthem? Why, she cannot tell about this reasoning from the Abrahamic\ncovenant. It is something she does not understand. But she can open\nher Bible, and point to chapter and verse for believer's baptism. She\nputs her finger upon something that is just adapted to her capacities.\nAs she has a soul to save, an obedience to render, and an account to\ngive, all for herself, her practice is accordingly. Brethren, think\nthis matter over, and see whether your reasoning on the Sabbath is not\nvery much akin to that of those who reason from the Abrahamic covenant\nto Baptism. Think seriously, whether it does not render _intelligent_\nobedience impossible to vast numbers of Christians. Think whether a\ncourse of reasoning which darkens a very simple subject, is not more\nspecious than solid.\n\nAgain, your children are to be early instructed in this matter, How do\nyou succeed in making them understand it? Is your little child capable\nof comprehending all this argument, which you found upon the finishing\nof redemption by the resurrection of Christ? Can you point him to any\nplain passage, where Christ authorizes a change of the Sabbath? How do\nyou feel when the little creature says, in the simplicity of his\nheart, \"Father, mother, does not the fourth commandment require the\nobservance of the seventh day of the week? But do we not keep the\nfirst day? I should think this is not keeping the commandment.\" One\nwould think you would be forcibly reminded of that scripture, \"Out of\nthe mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength.\" Ps.\n8:2.\n\nThe extensive operations in which you are engaged for the conversion\nof the world, render it in the highest degree important that you\nshould not err on a question like this. If you are right, you ought to\nbe very certain of it. Among the heathen, you are extending the\nobservance of Sunday as a sacred day. If you are thus sowing the seeds\nof error instead of truth, the evils who can calculate? Hence you\ncannot too early begin to review your ground. Consider the\ndifficulties your missionaries already have to encounter, because of\nunscriptural sentiments propagated among the heathen by those who\nnevertheless loved their souls. The poor, perishing idolaters are\nwitnesses of the clashing of doctrine between Jesus Christ's men, and\nthey ask, \"_Why is this? You have come to give us a gospel which\nprofesses to make its followers 'perfect in one,' and yet you\nyourselves are divided._\" You cannot in conscience abandon your\nprinciples, however, nor dare you, in your translations, give to a\nsentence or a particle one single turn, which will not fully express\nthe mind of the Holy Spirit. Dare you, then, without feeling the most\nentire certainty, teach them that God says, \"Remember the first day of\nthe week to keep it holy?\" The responsibility of the missionary, in\nthis respect, is not less than where his translation is concerned.\nDoes he feel the same awful sense of responsibility?\n\nFrom the heathen turn to the contemplation of the Jewish nation. The\ntime cannot be far distant, when those who, \"as touching the election,\nare beloved for the fathers' sakes,\" shall be called to behold the\nglory of God, in the face of Him they have so long rejected. But in\norder to this, a voice from the divine word cries, \"Cast ye up, cast\nye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of\nmy people.\" Have Christians seriously considered what this\nstumbling-block is? For our own part, we are persuaded that nothing\ncan be more justly called by this name, than the general abandonment,\non the part of Christians, of the Sabbath of the Lord. The Jews,\ntaking it for granted, without examination, that this abandonment is\nreally taught by the Christian religion, suppose that its author\ncannot be the true Messiah. They have seen, through every period of\ntheir nation's history, that God has put signal honor upon this\ninstitution. They have seen its sacredness elevated high above that of\nthe ceremonial institutions. They have heard their prophets dwell upon\nthe profanation of it as the crying sin of the land, on account of\nwhich the sore judgments of Heaven came down upon it. It is true, some\nteach that the whole Mosaic system was clothed with as much sacredness\nas the Sabbath; and that it was not for the sin of Sabbath breaking,\nany more than for a disregard of the ritual service in general, that\nthey suffered the wrath of Jehovah. But such persons must have paid\nonly a superficial attention to the subject. The attentive reader\ncannot fail to be struck with the fact, that while in the prophets the\nSabbath is exalted as of vast importance to the nation, and all its\nprosperity, and the favor of God, seemingly, suspended on the proper\nkeeping of it, ceremonial usages are comparatively depreciated.\n\nSince the Sabbath holds such a sacredness throughout the ancient\noracles of God--since the Israelites have taken their lessons of\nobedience to it under \"the rod of his wrath\"--since no grant was given\nto the Messiah to set it aside, nor the least intimation ever made to\nthe Jews that it would be set aside--can we wonder that they think\nthat teacher to be an impostor who should break this commandment, and\nteach men so?\n\nBut there is a crisis approaching--the day is near, and it hasteth\ngreatly--when it will be indispensable that all those who truly love\nthe Lord Jesus Christ, have their \"loins girt about with truth.\"\nPopery is preparing for another desperate struggle. The great\nprinciple of the Reformation, that \"the Scriptures are the only rule\nof faith,\" is to be discussed anew. In the Church of England, this\ndiscussion has already commenced. Rome has opened her sluices, and\nanti-christian corruption again threatens to flood the church of God.\nAs the water naturally seeks such channels as may be already prepared,\nso will it be with this doctrine. What branch of Zion will be next\ntroubled? Probably that which makes the next widest departure from the\ngreat Protestant principle. Then that which is next in order; and so\non. For it can not reasonably be expected to stop, until it reach that\norder of people which is governed by the Bible alone. Upon all others\nthe desolation must be more or less extensive. For those who\nacknowledge the principle of departing from the Bible in ever so small\na degree, may be expected to exemplify it to an indefinite extent,\nwhen the circumstances of the times are so modified as to give\noccasion for it. As for yourselves, you do not avow the _principle_ of\ndeparting from the Scriptures, but profess to hold it in abhorrence.\nThe language of your _creeds_ is explicit on this point; and we know\nof no denomination so forward to plead a strict conformity to this\nprinciple as yourselves. Yet it is impossible for you to pretend, with\nany show of modesty, that the Scriptures expressly enjoin the keeping\nof Sunday as a Sabbath to the Lord. You cannot say, from Scripture\nauthority, that the apostles observed it as such. Nevertheless, your\ncreed declares that it ought to be so observed; and your practice\naccords with your creed. Wherefore, it is as evident as mathematical\ndemonstration, that you do depart from the great Protestant principle.\nConsequently, if our views be correct in regard to the crisis which is\nat hand, the time cannot be far distant, when your own denomination\nwill in some modified form be affected with the deprecated evil, and\nyou will be compelled to abandon every principle and practice which\ncan give it the smallest advantage.\n\nDo you think, brethren, that in your present position you are prepared\nfor the great struggle? When the Puseyite, replying to those who\ncontend for the Protestant maxim, refers to the observance of Sunday,\nand says, \"Here we are absolutely compelled to resort to the aid of\nancient usage, as recorded, not by the inspired, but by the uninspired\nwriters,\" are you ready for the issue? Can you confute what he says?\nWhen another one says, \"The _seventh_ day is the Sabbath of the Lord\nthy God; we celebrate the _first_. Was this done by divine command?\nNo. I do not recollect that the Saviour, or the apostles, say we shall\nrest on the first day of the week instead of the seventh;\" and then\nconcludes, \"The same reasons which urge you to dissent from the\nobservance of the three grand festivals of the Church of England,\nought to operate with you respecting the Sabbath;\"--are you prepared\nto join issue with him? Can you justify yourselves on your own\nprinciples? If you can, we will confess our short-sightedness. But\nindeed we fear, we tremble, in view of the crisis which is\napproaching, when we look at the traditional usages prevailing among\nChristians, and consider with what a tenacious grasp they are held. O\nLord God Almighty! thou who hast sworn that 'thy kindness shall not\ndepart from thy church, nor the covenant of thy peace be removed,' let\nnot thy truth fall in the contest.\n\nWe mean not to goad your feelings, by charging upon you any of the\nabominations of Popery. We are sure you would not cherish one of them,\nif you were conscious of it. But we take it for granted, that those\nwho are forward to take the mote out of their brother's eye, are\nwilling to have the beam taken out of their own. You have charged\npedobaptist denominations, over and over, with upholding popery's\nchief pillar. You have told them, that their zeal against the man of\nsin would avail them but little, until they first rid themselves of\nhis traditions. You have talked feelingly of the sin of encumbering\nthe ordinances of God with human inventions. You have read the church\nof Christ many a good lesson on the importance of holding the truth in\nits purity. In all this you have, doubtless, been sincere. We have no\nfault to find with you; for you have only followed the Bible\ndirection, \"Cry aloud, spare not, show my people their transgression.\"\nIn conformity with this direction, we would endeavor to act our part\nas faithful reprovers. Yet our desire is, to do it with meekness,\nconsidering ourselves, lest we also be tempted. It may be--we know\nnot--that some of the abominations of the man of sin are cleaving to\nus. If so, \"let the righteous smite us, it shall be a kindness; let\nthem reprove us, it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break\nour head.\"\n\nTurn, brethren, to the seventh chapter of the prophecy of Daniel, and\ntwenty-fifth verse. You there find one spoken of who \"shall speak\ngreat words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of\nthe Most High, _and think to change_ TIMES _and_ LAWS.\" You have had\nno difficulty in finding in this prophecy a reference to the law of\nbaptism, as one of the _laws_ which this great power has changed; but\nyou have not shown satisfactorily what are the _times_. You have\nusually referred them to the numerous festivals and holy-days, which\nhave been multiplied by the church of Rome. But these were _times_\nESTABLISHED; not _times_ CHANGED. Will you please to expound this\npassage a little more clearly? Will you tell us whether, under the\ngospel, there is any sacred time except the Sabbath? We will not be\nunreasonably confident, but we are much mistaken, if you can give any\nclear and satisfactory construction to this prophecy, without finding\nthat something of Rome still cleaves to you.\n\nSuffer us here to declare our conviction, that you could take no more\neffectual step toward converting the Christian world to right views\nabout baptism, than to embrace the Sabbath of the Bible. In your\ndiscussions with Pedobaptists, you are constantly referred to the\nchange of the Sabbath, as proof that some things may be binding which\nthe Scriptures do not expressly enjoin. You have never met this\nargument fairly and fully. To be sure, you always make an attempt to\nmeet it. But how do you do it? By proving that Christ expressly\nenjoined his followers to _sabbatize_ on the first day of the week? By\nshowing from express Scripture testimony, that the apostles _did\nactually rest from their labors_ on that day? No. Neither of these\nthings have you ever shown; nor can you show them. The whole head and\nfront of your proof--if proof it may be called--amount only to this;\nthat the apostles and primitive Christians _met together for worship_\non that day. It is true, by such a course you have generally talked\nyour opponents into silence, because by exposing fully the defect of\nyour reply, it would only render their own transgression the more\nglaring. But while you _silenced_ them, you did not _convince_ them.\nWhile they saw that for one of _your own_ customs you could not plead\na \"thus saith the Lord,\" they felt comparatively easy under all your\nrebukes, and naturally enough thought it not _very_ important, that\n_they_ should have a \"thus saith the Lord\" for the sprinkling of babes.\n\nBut a most important consideration, in view of this subject, is the\ninfluence of your large and powerful denomination upon an unconverted\nworld. Whatever your theory about the perpetuity of the sabbatic\nlaw--whatever your doubts and scruples about the use of the term\n_Sabbath_ under the gospel--you cannot rid yourselves of a deep sense\nof the importance of a day of rest to the world at large. Hence the\nresolutions of your churches and conventional bodies, with regard to\nthe profanation of what you call the Lord's day. Hence your plain,\nout-spoken censures of running cars, stages, steamboats, and other\npublic conveyances, on this day. Hence your griefs and lamentations\nover those who make it a day of recreation or mirth. Hence your\nreadiness to co\u00f6perate with those bodies which are organized to\nsuppress, if possible, the violation of what is called the Sabbath. We\nadmire the _principle_ which governs you in all this; but we lament\nthat it is not regulated by a better understanding of the subject. If\nyou would promote right principles, you must be careful that your\nproofs, and examples for illustration, are pertinent and free from all\nuncertainty. We are fully persuaded, that your _Recommendations_ and\n_Pledges_, your _Resolutions_ and _Associational Acts_, will always\nmeet with defeat, until you can fortify them by a law of God, so\nclearly expressed, that it will urge and goad the violator's\nconscience wherever he may go. The consciences of guilty men cannot be\nreached by the method you are pursuing. You behold them desecrating\nthe Sunday, and, in order to make them lay it to heart as a sin, you\nbring down upon them--what? Apostolic example? New Testament\nintimations, and far-fetched inferences? No. None of these do you\nthink of employing. But the _Law_, the all-searching, sin-rebuking\n_Law_ of God, is the only means you think of in such a case. Nothing\nelse suits your purpose, be your _theory_ what it may. But hear their\nreply. \"Is the law of the commandment upon us TO-DAY? That it was\nYESTERDAY, we allow; for it says, '_the seventh day_.' That the law of\nthe commandment lies against us _every_ day, you will not pretend; but\nonly _one_ day in seven. If that one day was _yesterday_, you are\nyourselves as guilty as we; and we, therefore, feel comparatively\ncomfortable. To be sure, some sense of the necessity of keeping the\nSabbath holy, does at times rest upon our minds; and our consciences,\nfor the moment, reproach us; but when we see you, and all the\nChristian world, living in the neglect of it, we feel quite easy\nagain, and think our sin to be but a light one.\" Such may not be their\nprecise language, but it is the exact expression of their hearts'\nfeelings. Thus even the Law fails in your hands, because you attempt\nto make it speak _what it will not speak_.\n\nIf you ask _us_, \"Do _you_ meet with success in attempting to reach\nthe consciences of guilty, unbelieving men?\" we reply, that we have no\ndifficulty, except so far as you, and the whole body of observers of\nthe first day, stand in the way. We bring them to admit, openly and\nhonestly, the claims of God's law, and a sense of guilt momentarily\nrests upon them. But immediately they turn to contemplate _your_\npractice, and their hearts become hardened. We do, therefore,\naffectionately, but earnestly, invite you to consider, how tremendous\nis your influence toward perpetuating Sabbath profanation in the land.\nYour numbers, your learning, your talents, your wealth, your general\nrespectability, all combine to operate with overwhelming effect in\nthis matter.\n\nOur observations, if correct, go to show what a source of danger the\nSunday heresy is to the Moral Law. The Sabbath is a most important\nprecept of this law; \"the golden _clasp_,\" as an old writer quaintly\nobserves, \"which joins the two tables together; the _sinew_ in the\nbody of laws, which were written with God's own finger; the\nintermediate precept, which participates of the sanctity of both\ntables, and the due observance of which is the fulfilling of the whole\nlaw.\" This important precept is either set aside entirely, or its edge\nand keenness so muffled by a transfer to another day, that the united\nefforts of the church can do little or nothing toward impressing it on\nthe conscience. Here, then, is a relaxation of the standard of\nmorality; and while the standard is relaxed with regard to this one\nprecept, in vain do we look for the Law, as a whole, to appear\nglorious in the eyes of men.\n\nThis remark will be strengthened, if we consider to what\ninconsistencies the advocates of Sunday are driven. Some, in their\nzeal to defend it, even go so far as to deny the Moral Law to be a\nrule of conduct to Christians. Others, though they admit the Law to be\na rule of conduct, cannot relieve themselves of at least _seeming_ to\nundervalue it. When the Sabbath discussion is out of sight, they speak\nout clearly, and without equivocation, giving the fullest proof that\nthey regard the Law as the unchangeable standard of obedience. But at\nother times they reason from the New Dispensation in a manner so vague\nand indefinite, that one is puzzled to tell whether they regard the\nGospel as enforcing strict obedience to the Law or not. Now he that is\nestablished in the clear truth, is hampered with no such difficulties.\nThere is, with him, not only the naked and abstract admission, that\nthe Moral Law is unchangeably binding, but there appears such a\nbeautiful and perfect conformity between this admission and the\nprinciples he inculcates, that the most common minds are struck with\nit, and every doubt is scattered.\n\nWhile you are fettered by such difficulties, is there no danger that\nthe Law will lose its sacredness in the eyes of the people? Surely\nthere is. There is danger, also, that your system of theology will be\ncorrupted in other particulars. Error goes not alone. Could an opinion\nexist in the mind, circumscribed and isolated, without affecting any\nof our other principles, it would be comparatively harmless. But it is\nnot more a truth, that a man who utters one falsehood is obliged to\ntell twenty more to hide it, than that he who supports one error is\nobliged to forge numberless others to give consistency to his creed.\nIt is also a truth, which reflection and daily observation will\nconfirm, that nearly if not quite all the heresies which ever infested\nthe church of God, are traceable to some loose notions concerning the\nMoral Law. Nothing, therefore, can be more necessary, than that our\ncreed give the greatest possible prominence to the Law as a standard\nof holiness; and that our customs be in perfect conformity with our\ncreed.\n\nBrethren, can we hope that the subject on which we have addressed you\nwill receive your prayerful attention? Almost your entire denomination\nhas slumbered over it; but may we not hope, that you will now awake?\nMay we not hope, that it will be discussed in your private circles,\nand in your public assemblies; in your Bible classes, and in your\nSunday schools; that it will be studied by your ministers, and by the\npeople in general; and that every one will, in the deep desire of his\nsoul, pray, \"Lord, open thou mine eyes, that I may discern wondrous\nthings out of thy Law.\"\n\nBut if, on the other hand, we see a disposition to pass it by with\ncold neglect--an unwillingness to look the question in the face--an\nattempt, on the part of your teachers and leaders, to hush it up as a\nmatter of no importance--a studied effort to lead the people away from\nit, when they are disposed to examine--or teaching them that it is the\nspirit, rather than the letter of the law that God requires--we shall\nbe constrained to apply the language of Him who spake as never man\nspake--\"EVERY ONE THAT DOETH EVIL HATETH THE LIGHT, NEITHER COMETH TO\nTHE LIGHT, LEST HIS DEEDS SHOULD BE REPROVED.\" John 3:20.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ROYAL LAW CONTENDED FOR:\n\nOR,\n\nSome brief Grounds serving to prove that the Ten Commandments are yet\nin full force, and shall so remain till Heaven and Earth pass away:\n\nALSO,\n\nThe Seventh Day Sabbath, proved from the beginning, from the Law, from\nthe Prophets, from Christ, and his Apostles, to be a duty yet\nincumbent upon Saints and Sinners.\n\nBY A LOVER OF PEACE WITH TRUTH, EDWARD STENNET.\n\n They that forsake the Law praise the wicked, but such as keep the Law\n contend with them. Prov. 28:4.\n\n Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, Fear God and keep his\n commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc. 12:13.\n\n The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore\n the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Mark 2:27, 28.\n\n Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy\n commandments. Ps. 119:6.\n\n London, Printed in the Year 1658.\n NEW-YORK: REPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY.\n\n\nPREFACE BY THE TRACT SOCIETY.\n\nThe friends of the Sabbath will doubtless receive this little volume\nas a valuable relic of the past--as a word from one of the tried and\nfaithful friends of the truth, one who not only loved the day of God's\nweekly rest, but greatly delighted in the promise of a future and\nglorious sabbatism with the people of God. Edward Stennet, the author,\nwas the first of the series of Sabbatarian ministers of that name, who\nfor four generations continued to be among the foremost of the\nDissenters in England, and whose praise is still in all the churches.\nHe was an able and devoted minister, but dissenting from the\nEstablished Church, he was deprived of the means of support; and, his\nfamily being large, he applied himself to the study of medicine, by\nthe practice of which he was enabled to give his sons a liberal\neducation. He suffered much of the persecution which the Dissenters\nwere exposed to at that time, and more especially for his faithful\nadherence to the cause of the Sabbath. For this truth, he experienced\ntribulation, not only from those in power, by whom he was a long time\nkept in prison, but also much distress from unfriendly dissenting\nbrethren, who strove to destroy his influence, and ruin his cause. He\nwrote several treatises upon the subject of the Sabbath besides this,\nbut they are very rare, and perhaps cannot all be found in a perfect\nstate of preservation. It would be well, no doubt, to revive all of\nthem, and, if practicable, republish them in the same form as this,\nthat they might be bound together, and placed, as they deserve to be,\nin every Sabbath-keeper's library. They all breathe the genuine spirit\nof Christianity, and in their day were greatly conducive to the\nprosperity of the Sabbath-keeping churches.\n\nNEW-YORK, July, 1848\n\n\nTHE ROYAL LAW CONTENDED FOR\n\nSOME BRIEF GROUNDS, SERVING TO PROVE THAT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE YET\nIN FULL FORCE, AND SHALL SO REMAIN TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY.\n\n1. The matter of the ten commandments was written in the heart of Adam\nbefore his fall, as doth appear in Gen. 1:27, _God created man in his\nown image, in the image of God created he him_; also in Eccl. 7:29,\n_God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions_.\nAnd the Apostle plainly asserts, that the gentiles, which had not the\nlaw, (in the letter of it,) did by nature the things contained in the\nlaw, which showeth the work of the law written in their hearts. Rom.\n2:14, 15. Now if the gentiles had the word of the law written in their\nhearts in their sinful state, doubtless they had it in more perfection\nin their state of innocence, as considered in Adam; for the letter of\nthe law was added because of transgression. Gal. 2:19. Now if there\nwas transgression before the letter of the law was added, that implies\nthat there was a law before then; in that the letter of the law is\nsaid to be added, it implies that the matter of it was in being\nbefore, but much worn by sin; and that is one reason why the Lord was\npleased to add the letter.\n\nLet it be considered, how it can stand with Scripture or right reason,\nthat Jesus Christ should abrogate this law. Did Christ blot out this\nlaw from the hearts of all men by his death? Then all men have not the\nlaw of nature to guide them; for we cannot be so gross as to imagine\nthat the law is put into their hearts upon a new account, for that\nwere to bring all men under the new covenant.\n\n2. God spake all these commandments unto the people, and they heard\nhis voice, (Deut. 5:22-24,) with great majesty and glory, and he added\nno more; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and delivered\nthem unto Moses--all of which holds forth their perpetuity; they are\nspoken by God, they are written by him in tables of stone; so was\nnever any ceremony. Job desired that his words might be graven with a\npen of iron and lead in a rock of stone forever. Job 19:24.\n\n3. Afterward the first tables were broken, which I suppose did signify\nthe Israelites' breaking of the first covenant; for Moses broke them\non account of their having made a golden calf, and so had broken the\ncovenant. Whereupon Moses was then commanded to hew two tables like\nthe first, and God wrote the same words again upon them, (Deut.\n10:1-4,) and they only of all the laws were put into the ark, and when\nthe ark is set in its proper place between the cherubim there is\nnothing in it but the two tables. 1\u00a0Kings 8:9. Now the ark was a type\nof Christ, and the putting of the law into it did signify the putting\nof it into the heart of Christ, (Psalm 40:6-8, _Thy law is in my\nheart_,) and from thence they are transcribed into the hearts of the\nseed of Christ. See Jer. 31:33, where God promises to put his law in\ntheir inward parts, and write it in their hearts. Now what law is this\nthat must be put into the heart, when the law of sacrifice is\nabolished? Compare Heb. 10:6-9, with the fore-mentioned Psalm. That\nthis is the law that is here spoken of is manifest if we consider how\nproper and suitable it is for the heart of a believer. Paul calls it\nthe law of his mind in Rom. 7:23, and in verse 22 he professeth he\ndelights in the law of God after the inward man; and God saith he will\nput the law in his heart and write it there; both which phrases hold\nit forth to be the same law that was written by God and put into the\nark. Man's heart is the tables, and God himself is the writer; the\nmatter written is the law. Hear what Wisdom saith to this: _My son,\nkeep my words, and lay up my commandments within thee; keep my\ncommandments and live, and my law as the apple of thine eye; bind them\nupon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thy heart_. Prov.\n7:1-3. Now what laws are these but the table laws? And Wisdom's son is\nto have them written upon the fleshy tables of his heart.\n\n4. When God promiseth to exalt his first-born higher than the kings of\nthe earth, and that his covenant should stand fast with him, and that\nhis seed should endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven,\n(Psalms 89:28, 29,) yet he saith, _If his children forsake my law, and\nwalk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my\ncommandments; then will I visit their transgression with a rod, and\ntheir iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving kindness will I\nnot utterly take away, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail._ Verses\n30-32. Mark it, this covenant was with Christ, (though with David in\nthe type,) in behalf of all the seed; and the chastisements must be\nthe portion of the seed if they break the law of God, though his\ncovenant stand fast. Now as this covenant reaches all the seed, so\ndoth the law and the punishments for the breach of it; and if so, then\nwhat law is it that reaches all the seed, if not the law of the ten\ncommandments, with those laws which are comprehended in them.\n\n5. These commandments are eminently distinguished and marked out from\nall the ceremonial laws, both to show their eminency and perpetuity:\nthey are said to be the work of God, in Exod. 32:16; and the Psalmist\nsaith, _The works of his hands are verity and judgment_. And these\nworks are called, _all his commandments_, in Psalm 111:7, and they are\nten. Deut. 4:13. And therefore I conceive Wisdom's son is to bind them\nupon his fingers, to show the number of them, there being for each\nfinger one, and that both hands might be active in them. And Zacharias\nand Elisabeth were said to walk in all the commandments and ordinances\nof the Lord. Luke 1:6. They are distinguished from the ceremonial\nordinances, and called all the commandments, to set forth their\nnumber, as before said, and their eminencey; and therefore they are so\nfrequently called in the Scripture, _the commandments of God_,\ndistinct from the other laws, which were shadowy in the time of the\nlaw of shadows, (as these places of Scripture, besides many others, do\nshow, viz., Deut. 5:31, 6:11, 7:11, 8:11, 11:1, 30:16, 1\u00a0Kings 2:3,\n8:58, 2\u00a0Chron. 19:10, Neh. 1:7, and 10:29, &c.,) and distinct from the\ntestimony of Jesus in clear gospel times. In Rev. 12:17, note that the\ndragon's war is with the remnant of the woman's seed which kept the\ncommandments of God and the testimony of Jesus. And again, here are\nthey that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Rev.\n14:12. And when the man would know what he should do to be saved,\nChrist told him that he knew the commandments. A cloud of witnesses\nwould come in, if need were, for the confirmation of them. But farther\nobserve what the Scripture saith to their duration. The Psalmist\nsaith, _All his commandments are sure, they stand fast for ever and\never, and are done in truth and uprightness_. Psalm 111:7, 8. Note it;\nall his commandments, which are the works of his hands, as aforesaid,\nstand fast for ever and ever; that is, not only in the time of the\nministration of the letter, which was in a sense for ever, but for\never and ever, that is, under both ministrations, that of the letter\nand that of the spirit, in Old Testament times and in the New. Search\nand see if you can find any word that doth speak of any thing that is\nsaid to abide or stand fast for ever and ever, which comes short of\nthe time aforesaid. And when God hides his face from the house of\nJacob, then is the time that the testimony is bound up and the law is\nsealed among the disciples, (Isa. 8:16, 17,) clearly relating to the\ntime that the Jews rejected the gospel, and the disciples are\ncommanded to make use of the law as well as the testimony to try the\ndoctrines of others by. Isa. 8:20. All which shows the perpetuity of\nthis law of God, which will farther appear if we consider Deut. 7:9.\nOur Lord saith in Matt. 5:17, 18, _Think not that I am come to destroy\nthe law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill_. But\nthe question will be, what law this is? To me it appears to be the law\nof the ten commandments; for these reasons:\n\n1st. Because this comes in as the motive to provoke his disciples to\nlet their light shine in the world, that men might see their good\nworks and glorify their Father which is in heaven. Matt 5:16.\nTherefore it must be such a law as the doing of it holds forth good\nworks to public view.\n\n2d. It is such a law as Christ professes he came not to destroy; but\nthe ceremonial law he destroyed in this very sense, so that none are\nto be in the practice of it; he blotted out the hand-writing of\nordinances that was against us, and contrary to us, and took it out of\nthe way, nailing it to his cross.\n\n3d. Destroying of the law is here put in direct opposition to\nfulfilling of it; to destroy is to take out of the way or to blot out\nas before; but to fulfill the law is to do that which is contained in\nthe law; therefore saith Christ to John, when he went to be baptized,\n_It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness_, (that is, to perform\nit.) Matt. 3:15. And the Apostle saith, that love is the fulfilling of\nthe law. What law? Why this, _Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou\nshalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, &c. Love worketh no ill to his\nneighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law._ Rom. 13:8-10.\nSo that, to fulfill the law of the ten commandments, is not to blot\nthem out or make them void; that were to destroy them, which Christ\ncame not to do, but, on the contrary, to do the things contained in\nthem, which he did exactly in his life, and so was offered up a Lamb\nwithout spot.\n\n4th. This is such a law as must stand in force, every jot and tittle\nof it, till heaven and earth pass away. Matt. 5:19. But heaven and\nearth are not yet passed away; therefore this law stands firm. But\nbecause it is said in the text, Till all be fulfilled, hence some\naffirm that all was fulfilled at the death of Christ, and this\nfulfilling of it holds forth the abrogating of it. But did heaven and\nearth pass away then? or did Christ, by his taking upon him all that\nguilt which was due to us, and by his perfect fulfilling of it in his\nwalk, take us from our obedience? God forbid. Because Christ fulfilled\nthe righteousness of the law, must we not fulfill it? The Apostle\nsaith that for this end Christ died. _For what the law could not do,\nin that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the\nlikeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh; that\nthe righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not\nafter the flesh but after the spirit._ Rom. 8:3, 4. But what is the\nfulfilling of the righteousness of the law, but to do the righteous\nthings contained in the law? And in this sense every true believer\ndoth fulfill the law, though his completeness be in Christ; for love\nis the fulfilling of the law, (Rom. 13:10,) so that the commanding\npower of the law is such a just measure, that every one that loves\nacts his part towards the fulfilling of it.\n\n5th. It farther appears to be the ten commandments, by the use Christ\nmakes of what he had before asserted: _Whosoever therefore shall break\none of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be\ncalled least in the kingdom of heaven_. Matt. 5:19. That is, forasmuch\nas that law must stand till heaven and earth pass away, and I came not\nto destroy it, therefore beware of breaking it, for whosoever you are\nthat break any part of it, and shall teach men so, you shall be called\nthe least in the kingdom of heaven; _but whosoever shall do and teach\nthem, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven_. To\nprevent farther mistake, he repeateth the law in many particulars, and\ngives the sense, showing how far their righteousness should exceed the\nrighteousness of the scribes and pharisees. By all of which it plainly\nappears, that this law, which Christ came not to destroy, is the law\nof the ten commandments, or the laws that were comprehended in them.\n\n6. The Apostle confirmeth and establisheth this law after the death of\nChrist, as plainly appears in the third chapter of Romans, the drift\nof which is to set Jews and Gentiles in a like condition by\nnature--all breakers of the law of God, and so become guilty before\nhim, (verse 19,) and that therefore no flesh could be justified by the\ndeeds of the law, the law being for another purpose--to convince of\nsin, (verse 20,) or to bring sin to their knowledge. He proves that\nJews and Gentiles, circumcised and uncircumcised, are justified by and\nthrough faith, and not by the law of works. Verses 27-30. But lest the\nGentiles should think, because they could not be justified by the\nworks of the law, that therefore they might look upon the law as a\nthing done away or made void, he puts this question to the\nuncircumcised Gentiles, _Do we then make void the law through faith?\nGod forbid; yea, we establish the law._ He settles this question,\nwhether the law be in force to believing Gentiles or no, with a God\nforbid; which shows the greatness of his zeal against such a\npersuasion, it being the same answer which he gives to another gross\nquestion, whether we should continue in sin that grace might abound;\nand, as if that were not enough, he adds to it, Yea, we establish the\nlaw.\n\n7. This same Apostle doth prove that the law was in force at the time\nof his conversion. He saith he had not known sin but by the law; he\nhad not known lust except the law had said, _Thou shalt not covet_.\nRom. 7:7. He was alive without the law once, but when the commandment\ncame, sin revived, and he died, (verse 9,) that is, not without the\nletter of it, for that he had, and did in a great measure conform to,\nbut without powerful convictions for sin by the law; and in this sense\nthen the commandment came, sin revived, and he died that before was\nalive in his own apprehension. _For without the law sin was dead_,\n(verse 8,) and by the law is the knowledge of sin; and sin, taking\noccasion by the commandment, deceived him, and slew him. _Wherefore\nthe law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just and good_, (verses\n11, 12;) not that the holy and just law was made death unto him--God\nforbid--but sin, that it might appear sin, by this good law wrought\ndeath in him, that by the commandment sin might appear exceeding\nsinful. Verse 13. And if so, then this law did not die with the body\nof Christ; though we are dead to the law by the body of Christ, that\nwe should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the\nletter, and that we should be married to another, even him who is\nraised from the dead; we being dead to that spirit of bondage in which\nwe were held, that we set our obedience to the law no longer in the\nroom of Christ as our head and husband; Christ by his blood having\npurchased us from that power that the law had over us by reason of\nsin. So that our service is not to satisfy the law, as a woman serves\nto please her husband that she is bound to; but we are not dead to\nserving in newness of spirit in obedience to Christ as our husband.\nRom. 7:4-6. In this sense the Apostle delights in the law of God after\nthe inward man, (verse 22,) though the other law in his members stood\nin great opposition to it. Verse 23. Mind this chapter well, and it\nwill appear so plain that he that runs may read, that the Apostle\nintends no such thing as to take us from our obedience to the law, nor\nyet the abrogating of the law, but the contrary.\n\n8. The same Apostle urges the law, in the very letter of it, to the\nEphesians. He saith, in chapter 6:1-3, _Children, obey your parents,\nfor this is right; honor thy father and thy mother, which is the first\ncommandment with promise._ He proves his exhortation to be right from\nthe commandment, and he takes notice of the order of the commandments;\nit is the first commandment of that second table, and it hath a\npromise annexed to it. He speaks in the present tense; he does not say\nit _was_ the first commandment, but it _is_ the first with a promise,\n_that thy days may be long on the earth_. He urges the promise to them\nfor their encouragement; and to prevent mistakes, he shows the extent\nof it, that it was not only to the Jews, that they should live long in\nthe land of Canaan, but to the Gentiles also; therefore the\ninterpretation says, _that thy days may be long on the earth_.\n\n9. James gives a full confirmation to what I am treating of. He\nconvinces them of sin by this law, in having the faith of Jesus Christ\nwith respect of persons, as appears by chapter 2:10, 11, _For\nwhosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is\nguilty of all._ He shows what law he means, and how it is that he who\noffends in one point is guilty of all; because, _He that saith, Do not\ncommit adultery, saith also, Do not kill; now if thou commit no\nadultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the\nlaw._ And John saith, _Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth the law,\nfor sin is the transgression of the law,_ (1\u00a0John 3:3, 4;) and in the\nnext verse he explains what law he means, and saith, it was such\ntransgression that Christ was manifested to take away. Now if this law\nof God was done away by the death of Christ, sin could not be a\ntransgression of it so long after; neither could any be convinced of\nsin by it, because it was not. But the Apostle saith, _Whosoever\ncommiteth sin transgresseth the law;_ which shows it was in force\nthen, and not only so, but that likewise it should so remain.\n\n10. Let it be considered whether this opinion that the law is done\naway doth not clash with redemption itself. The Apostle states that\nall men were under the law, and by breaking of it they came under the\ncurse. Gal. 3:10. And Christ was made under the curse, to redeem his\npeople from under the curse of the law, that the blessing of Abraham\nmight come upon the Gentiles through faith. Verses 13, 14. Now if we\nwere not under the commanding power, we could not be under the curse,\n(for that follows disobedience,) and if so, then Christ was not made a\ncurse for us; neither can the blessing of Abraham come upon the\nGentiles upon that account, if the Jews only were under the law, and\nunder the curse of it. Christ's dying to redeem them from the curse,\ncould not bring the blessing of Abraham upon the Gentiles. And again,\nthe Apostle saith, _that Christ was made under the law, to redeem them\nthat were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons_.\nGal. 4:4, 5. Now if we were not under the law, we could not be\nredeemed by Christ's being under the law, nor receive the adoption of\nsons thereby; but it is manifest that every one is under the\ncommanding power of the law, and by nature under the curse; and Christ\nhath only redeemed his people from the curse, but they are not\nredeemed from their obedience to the law of God. I find no Scripture\nthat saith so; but the contrary.\n\n11. God complaineth of the blindness of his servants, and of the\ndeafness of his messengers that he sent, (Isa. 42:19, 20,) and their\nblindness and deafness appears in this, that they did not hear nor\nunderstand God's design in the gift of his Son, that it was not to\ndestroy the law or to slight it, but to magnify it and make it\nhonorable. Verse 2. Previously it was in tables of stone, but now in\nthe fleshy tables of the heart; service was then done from a spirit of\nbondage, but now from a spirit of adoption. And in this sense I\nconceive the law to be magnified and made honorable, and upon this\naccount God is well pleased for his righteousness' sake, that is, I\nconceive, for his Son's sake.\n\n12. This opinion, that the whole law is abolished, doth pull up true\nmagistracy by the roots, the office of rulers being for the punishment\nof evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. But if the\nstatutes and judgments be not in force, there is no corporeal\npunishment to be inflicted upon any, though thieves, murderers, or the\nlike; and so there is no room for the magisterial power at all, but\nmen are left in this respect as the beasts of the field, to shift one\namong another as well as they can. But the Apostle saith, _The law is\nmade for the lawless and disobedient, for ungodly and for sinners, for\nunholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,\nfor man-slayers_, &c. 1\u00a0Tim. 1:9, 10. Now that this is the law of\npenalties, is manifest, in that it is said it was not made for a\nrighteous man; but the ten commandments were for the righteous, for\nthe Psalmist saith, _Make me to go in the path of thy commandments,\nfor therein do I delight. O how love I thy law! It is my meditation\nall the day._ Psalm 119:35, 97.\n\nAnd how shall we have governors as at the first, and counsellors as at\nthe beginning, (Isa. 1:26,) if they have no law to govern by? If any\nsay we shall have laws from Christ, and shall not need those laws that\nwere for the commonwealth of Israel, I answer, I know no word of God\nthat doth give us ground to hope for any other laws of Scripture then\nwhat we have. And suppose that God should revive his work and bring\nhis enemies under, and put opportunity into the hands of men fearing\nGod and hating covetousness to rule the nation, and to make laws\naccording to Scripture, what could they do if the Scripture were not\ntheir statute-book, if they should turn law-makers? Would not that be\ntheir sin, there being no warrant in the Scripture for it? And would\nit not bring all into confusion again, and make another Babel? For the\ngreat question which is to be resolved in the latter days, will be,\nWho is our statute-maker?--which the saints put out of question in\nIsa. 33:22, _The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Statute-maker, the\nLord is our King, he will save us,_ (and not king Omri with his\nstatutes.) Mich. 6:16. And when the saints come to own this truth in\ngood earnest, their opponents' tacklings will be loosed; they shall\nneither strengthen their masts, nor spread their sails. And Malachi\ntells us what laws our King hath made, which the saints are to own\nwhen the day of the Lord shall burn as an oven all the proud, and the\nSun of Righteousness arise upon all that fear him; when they shall\ntread down the wicked with so much ease that they shall be as ashes\nunder the soles of their feet, so that it shall be counted the Lord's\ndoings. And in the day that the Lord shall do this, _Remember ye the\nlaw of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all\nIsrael, with the statutes and judgments._ Mal. 4:3, 4.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI shall now endeavor to answer some objections which are usually\nbrought against this truth, though several of them are partly answered\nin the grounds before mentioned. I shall therefore say the less, and\nbegin to speak something to that Scripture in 2\u00a0Corinthians, third\nchapter, on which the objectors chiefly build their persuasion; and\nindeed at the first glance thereon, without comparing it with other\nScriptures, it hath more color for such a purpose than all the\nScriptures that ever I heard brought; from which Scripture this is\nobjected, that the ten commandments were the ministration of death and\nthe letter, and are done away.\n\n_Answer._ That they were the ministration of death and of the letter\nis granted, for the Scripture saith so; but the Scripture doth not say\nthat they are done away, as will appear, if we consider the drift of\nthe Apostle. He endeavoreth to show the difference between the\nministration of the spirit and of the letter, the one being a bare\nreading of the law, from which no life was communicated to those that\nheard it. The Apostle calls it the ministration of condemnation, that\nis, it lays open sin, and the curse for sin, but it is the gospel\nministration which holds forth justification and strength against sin;\nnot that the ten commandments in themselves were death to any--God\nforbid! as the Apostle saith in Rom. 7:13; but sin, when it is\nfinished, bringeth forth death; and the commandments preach death to\nthe transgressors of them, so that they are called the ministration of\ndeath and condemnation, because man hath broken them, and so is under\nthe curse of them, which Christ hath delivered believers from, (Rom.\n3:13;) and the ministration of it is really done away, that is, as I\nsaid before, the reading of the law by a typical priesthood, which the\nJews would have set up in the room and place of the ministration of\nthe spirit. And whereas they lived under the hearing of the bare\nletter of the law, which gave no strength to perform, we live under\nthe hearing of the gospel, which is spirit and life. John 6:36. But\nthat the matter of the law, or commanding power of it, should be done\naway, this Scripture doth not in the least prove, but it is used in\nthe hand of the Spirit to convince of sin. This the same Apostle\nproves in Rom. 7:7, where he saith, _I had not known sin but by the\nlaw; I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not\ncovet._ This will appear evident if we consider the same chapter from\nverse 8 to verse 14.\n\n_Obj._ 2. Another Scripture is frequently urged from Acts 7:37--_A\nprophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren,\nlike unto me; him shall ye hear._ From which it is concluded, that we\nare to hearken only to Christ and not to Moses.\n\n_Ans._ If by hearing of Christ you mean hearing only what he spake\nwith his own lips when he was on earth, then we are not to hear\nhis apostles. But if you mean, by hearing of him, to hear what he\nspake upon earth and what he spake by his Spirit in his apostles, then\nwhy are we not to hear what he spake by his Spirit to his prophets,\nseeing we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,\nChrist being the chief corner-stone. Eph. 21:20. And if those who are\nof this persuasion would be true to their principle to hear Christ,\nhear him what he saith in Luke 16:31--_They have Moses and the\nprophets, let them hear them; for if they will not believe Moses and\nthe prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the\ndead._ And he counsels to keep the commandments, (Matt. 19:17, 18,)\nand reproves for the breach of them, as also for the making them void\nby traditions, (Matt. 15:6,) as might be made to appear by many other\nScriptures. Therefore there is nothing of weight in this objection to\nshake the thing asserted. But for a more full answer to this objection\nand the former, I must needs entreat the reader to see my other book\non the Sabbath.\n\n_Obj._ 3. Moses was faithful over his house as a servant, so Christ is\nfaithful over his house as a son. Now, if Christ hath not given us all\nthe laws that we are to observe, this is to make Christ less faithful\nthan Moses.\n\n_Ans._ Doubtless Christ as a son is faithful over his house, as Moses\nwas faithful over his house as a servant. But we are to consider, what\nwas Moses' house, and what is Christ's house. Moses' house, I\nconceive, was the Tabernacle; his faithfulness did appear in that he\ndid all things according to the pattern showed him in the Mount.\nChrist's house is the saints, the true tabernacle which the Lord hath\npitched and not man, (Heb. 8:2, 5,) of which the other was a shadow.\nAnd as Moses as a servant gave forth ordinances for his house, so\nChrist as a son has given out ordinances for his house. But the ten\ncommandments are a law which belongs to men as they are men, though\nthey be no part of Christ's house, it being, as before proved, the law\nwritten in their very hearts.\n\n_Obj._ 4. But when certain of the sect of the pharisees arose and said\nit was needful to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, the\nApostle proves them to be tempters of God, in putting a yoke upon the\nneck of the disciples, which neither they nor their fathers were able\nto bear. Acts 15:5, 10.\n\n_Ans._ Are the ten commandments such a yoke as is not to be borne? Is\nit a yoke to have no other God but Jehovah, and to abstain from\nmurder, theft, adultery, and the like? For so it must be, if you judge\nthat the whole law is here slighted. But the thing under discussion\nhere is, whether such and such laws are to be kept or not, and the\nstress that is laid upon the keeping of them, namely, the pressing of\nthem as things without which they could not be saved, as in Acts 15:1;\nand therefore the Apostle, in answer to this, shows that the Gentiles\nhad received the gospel and did believe, God having given to them the\nHoly Ghost, and put no difference between them and the Jews, purifying\ntheir hearts by faith, (verses 7-9,) and that through the grace of\nJesus Christ both Jews and Gentiles should be saved, (verse 11;) and\nas the Apostle opposeth the keeping of these laws for such a purpose\nas to be saved thereby, so the bare keeping of them is forbidden. And\ntherefore James saith, (verses 19, 20,) _My sentence is, that we\ntrouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God,\nbut that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of\nidols, from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood._ So\nthat the Apostle's judgment is, that the Gentiles should keep some\npart of the law. And therefore the question was not, whether any part\nof the law should be kept; and the reason why they would write no more\nseems to be in verse 20, _For Moses of old time hath in every city\nthem that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day._\nSo the apostles and elders write, in verse 24, _Forasmuch as we have\nheard that certain men that went out from us have troubled you with\nwords, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep\nthe law, to whom we gave no such commandment._ Now can we be so gross\nas to think, that it is subverting men's souls, and contrary to the\ncommandments of the apostles and elders, to bid them love the Lord\ntheir God with all their hearts and with all their strength, and to\nworship him alone, and not to take his name in vain, and the like?\nThis is to keep the law. But the difference was about other laws as\nwell as circumcision, and they are as really forbidden to keep them,\nas they are forbidden circumcision; and therefore it cannot be the law\nof the ten commandments, but the law of shadows, as is manifest by\nchapter 21. When Paul came to Jerusalem, the brethren told him that it\nwas reported that he taught all the Jews which were among the Gentiles\nto forsake Moses, saying, _that they ought not to circumcise their\nchildren, neither to walk after the customs_, (verse 21;) therefore\nthey counseled Paul to purify himself, with some others, that it might\nbe seen that he walked orderly and kept the law. Verse 24. _But as\ntouching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded\nthat they observe no such things._ Verse 25. So that it is very clear,\nthat it is circumcision and the customs that is here called the law of\nMoses, which the Gentiles were commanded not to keep. But to think\nthat the Gentiles should be forbidden to keep the law of God that was\nwritten in their natures is abominable, and contrary both to Scripture\nand reason.\n\n_Obj._ 5. But the Scripture saith, _Cast out the bond-woman and her\nson, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of\nthe free-woman_; which bond-woman was an allegory of the covenant from\nMount Sinai, and therefore to be cast out.\n\n_Ans._ The Apostle is here showing how impossible it is for works and\ngrace to stand together in point of justification; for this people\nwere seeking to be justified by the works of the law. He shows the\ndifference betwixt the two covenants, one of works gendering to\nbondage, _the righteousness of the law being this, that the man that\ndoeth these things should live in them_, (Rom. 10:5;) the other of\ngrace or free promise, without any respect to man's righteousness. He\nshows that the sons of the covenants are like unto their mothers; the\nsons of the one covenant are born after the flesh, the sons of the\nother by promise; and those that are born after the flesh persecute\nthose that are born after the Spirit. Nevertheless, what saith the\nScripture? _Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the\nbond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman;_ that is,\nthe covenant of works with those that seek to be justified thereby,\n_Christ being the end of the law for righteousness to every one that\nbelieveth_. Rom. 10:4. But if we should understand the ten\ncommandments in themselves to be the bond-woman, then it is impossible\nfor them that keep them to be heirs or children of the promise, but\nthey must be cast out as children of the bond-woman, which is very\nerroneous, and contrary to the current of the Scriptures. For the\ndoers of the law are justified before God, (Rom. 2:13,) though not for\ndoing. And mark how the Apostle forbids this notion in Romans\n3:31--_Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Shall\nwe continue in sin,_ or transgress the law, _that grace may abound?\nGod forbid!_ Rom. 6:1, 2. _Is the law sin? God forbid!_ Rom. 7:7. _Was\nthe law, which was good, made death unto me? God forbid!_ Verse 13.\n_Shall we transgress the law because we are not under the condemning\npower of it,_ (Christ having redeemed us from it?) _God forbid!_ Rom.\n6:15. Certainly the Scripture did foresee how apt men would be to\nslight and make void the law of God under specious pretences, as their\nbeing believers, and Gentiles which had not the law given to them, but\nthat they are under grace, and the like. _If the uncircumcision keep\nthe righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted\nfor circumcision?_ Rom. 2:26.\n\nConsider these queries--1. If the whole law was done away by the death\nof Christ, why did the Apostle spend so much time to prove that by the\nworks of the law none could be justified, (Gal. 3,) seeing there was\nno law to work upon? Would it not have been a nearer way to have told\nthem that the law was abolished?\n\n2. If the whole law was done away at the death of Christ, how can any\npart of it be now in force? If it be said it is upon a new account,\nshow me any one law that Christ hath once destroyed and again revived,\nseeing the Apostle saith, if he should build again the things that he\ndestroyed, he should make himself a transgressor. Gal. 2:14.\n\n3. What Scripture proves that we have any one of the ten commandments\ngiven out on a new account?\n\n4. If the whole law be done away, what law is there for the punishment\nof evil-doers, thieves, murderers, and the like?\n\n5. If the ten commandments are to be abolished, how is it that the\nLord hath annexed so many great and precious promises to the keeping\nof them and delighting in them, as in Psalms 1:1-4, and many other\nplaces, which do of right belong to such as keep the commandments?\nRev. 22:14.\n\n6. How is it that the Apostle saith, the law is good if a man use it\nlawfully, (1\u00a0Tim. 1:8,) if at the same time there be no law?\n\n7. If the law was done away at the death of Christ, when was it given\nagain upon a new account? If it was given before his death, (in the\n5th chapter of Matthew,) then how is it that the law that was given on\nSinai stood in force till that time? Could they both stand in force at\nonce? If not till after the death of Christ, then when was it given\nout, seeing that we find not any of the commandments so much as\nmentioned for a long time after the death of Christ? Can we think the\nsaints and the world were left without a law?\n\n8. How is it that we contend for governors as at the first, and\ncounsellors as at the beginning, seeing there is no law for them to\nrule and govern by, if this doctrine be true, that the whole law is\ndone away?\n\nThus I have endeavored in a measure to prove, that the ten\ncommandments are not only in force to unbelievers, but also to\nbelievers. But believers are not under the law so as to be justified\nor condemned by it; not under it as a covenant of works and\nministration of death, but under it as a righteous rule of life--a\nholy, just, and good law; so they are under it, and do delight in it.\nRom. 7:22; Psalms 119:70, 72, 97; 1\u00a0Cor. 9:21. _It is time for thee,\nLord, to work; for they have made void thy law,_ (Psalms 119:122.)\n_Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be\nright, and I hate every false way,_ (Verse 128.)\n\n\nTHE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH.\n\nIf the ten commandments be in force, every jot and tittle of them, it\nmust necessarily follow that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and is to\nbe observed according to the commandment. But because there is much\nopposition against this truth, I shall offer something in particular\nto it, which may tend to the clearing of it.\n\n1. It was instituted by God before the fall of man, as appears in Gen.\n1:31--_And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was\nvery good._ But when man sinned, God changed his voice, and then the\nground was cursed for his sake. Gen. 3:17. Farther, God was six days\nupon his work of creation, and rested not until the seventh day. Now,\nbetwixt the end of the sixth day and the beginning of the seventh day,\nthere is no interval or space of time, (chap. 1:31, 2:2;) then why\nshould it be thought that the Sabbath was a shadow to hold forth rest\nby faith, and why should we run into such imaginations concerning the\ncause of God's instituting the Sabbath, seeing God so plainly declared\nit himself, namely, _that he blessed the seventh day and sanctified\nit, because that in it he rested, from all his works which God created\nand made_. Gen. 2:3.\n\n2. The reason that the Lord gave when he commanded the observance of\nthe seventh day, was as before, _because that in six days the Lord\nmade heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested\nthe seventh day, wherefore the Lord, blessed the Sabbath day and\nhallowed it_, (Exod. 20:11;) and it is as a motive to provoke man to\nfollow the Lord's example from the beginning, both in work and rest.\n_Six days,_ saith the Lord, _thou shalt labor and do all thy work, but\nthe seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt\ndo no manner of work._ And if thou wouldest know a reason why thou\nshouldest do so, it is because I the Lord thy God did so. And truly,\nto me it is clear, that one main reason why the Lord took so much time\nas six days to create all things in, and rested the seventh day, was\nto show man an example, and what he ought to do. Doubtless God could\nhave made all things in a moment; but six days he works, and rests the\nseventh day, that man might do the same, and thereby not only hold\nforth the creating power of God, and the method that he was pleased to\ntake in the creation, but also his great mercy in instructing and\ncommanding man to work six days and rest the seventh, that he might be\nrefreshed.\n\n3. It plainly appears, that this institution was in force and to be\nobserved from the beginning, though no mention is made of the\npatriarchs observing it, no more than of their sacrificing and doing\nmany other things, which it is judged that they did, notwithstanding\nwe hear nothing of them. But consider, God rested the seventh day and\nsanctified it. Now to profane that which God sanctifies doubtless is a\nsin; and had they done servile work upon the Sabbath, they had\nprofaned it. Neh. 13:16, 17. And what the Lord said to Peter, in\nanother case, may be rightly said in this, namely, _What God hath\nsanctified, that call not thou common or unclean._ Acts 10:15. And the\nLord, when he gave forth this command, saith, _Remember the Sabbath_,\nto note the importance of it, and the antiquity of it, it being no new\nthing, but from the beginning; and that the Lord urges, in verse 11,\nas the cause why it was to be observed. Israel observed the Sabbath\nbefore the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, as appears in Exod.\n16:23, 25, 26. But mark what Nehemiah saith to this in, chapter 9:13,\n14, _Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them\nfrom heaven, and gavest them right judgments and true laws, good\nstatutes and commandments, and madest known also unto them thy holy\nSabbath._ Mark, this commandment is singled out from all the rest, and\nis said to be made known to them, which shows that it was in being\nbefore, though probably they might lose the observation of it, by\nreason of their hard bondage in Egypt. However, it is plain that they\nhad need of the knowledge of the Sabbath, and God makes it known unto\nthem. And Christ leads us plainly to the first institution of it when\nhe saith, _The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath._\nHe points to the making of it, and for whom it was made, not for the\nJews only as Jews, but for man, before there was any such distinction\nas Jew and Gentile; and in that it was made for man, which was the\npublic person or representative of the whole of mankind, it was made\nfor all men, Adam standing as a public person before his fall.\n\n4. Our Lord Jesus doth show the true end of God's giving the Sabbath,\nand also how it ought to be kept, and shows the pharisees their\nmistake in the observation of it, they being so rigid that they would\nnot suffer good works and works of mercy to be done, though there were\nnecessity for the doing of them, as will appear if we consider the\nfollowing Scriptures: The pharisees asked Christ if it was lawful to\nheal on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse him, (Matt. 12:10,)\nand his answer was this, _What man is there among you that shall have\none sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not\nlay hold on it and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a\nsheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day._ Matt.\n12:10-12. Again, the pharisees told Christ that his disciples did that\nwhich was not lawful, because they pulled the ears of corn upon the\nSabbath day. But mind the answer of Christ, _Have ye not read what\nDavid did when he was a hungered and had need, how he entered into the\nhouse of God, and did eat the shew-bread, which it is not lawful for\nany to eat but the priests?_ Mark 2:24-26. _Have ye not read in the\nlaw, that the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath day and are\nblameless?_ Matt. 12:5. It was not unlawful to pluck the ears of corn\nwhen they went through their neighbor's field, for that they might do\nby the law of God, (Deut. 23:25,) and that the pharisees knew very\nwell; but they thought it was unlawful because they did it upon the\nSabbath day. But mark the answer of Christ, how he cleared the\ndisciples; it was unlawful for David to eat the shew-bread, but he was\na hungered and had need, and therefore to be excused. If the disciples\nhad pulled the ears of corn when they had no need, upon the Sabbath\nday, it had been doing of needless work, and so had been unlawful. But\nthe text saith they were a hungered, therefore they might do it, it\nbeing a work of mercy as David's was. And the same may be said of the\npriests' profaning the Sabbath, who, notwithstanding, are said to be\nblameless. Their preparation of the sacrifices was allowed, which work\nin itself would have been counted servile work, but that it was for\nsuch a merciful end, namely, the sins of the people; therefore saith\nChrist, _Had ye known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not\nsacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless._ Matt. 12:7.\nClearly proving that the Sabbath was to be observed, (but not so as to\nbreak another command, to neglect mercy, which the pharisees would\ndo,) and that his disciples, in having mercy on their bodies, were no\nSabbath-breakers.\n\nFarther, observe what Christ saith in Mark 2:27, _The Sabbath was made\nfor man, and not man for the Sabbath._ The pharisees made themselves\nslaves and bond-men by making the Sabbath a yoke, (whereas it should\nhave been a delight, Isa. 58:13,) by superstitious outside\nperformances, as though man had been made for the Sabbath. But Christ\ntells them, it was made for man, that is, for the good and benefit of\nman, that he might rest from his labors and be refreshed, as they were\nin Exod. 31:17. And thus you see how clearly our Lord hath given the\nsense of this law. It is lawful to do well upon the Sabbath day, to\nvisit the sick and to heal them, and to do works of mercy to our own\nand others' bodies, the Sabbath being made for man.\n\n5. Jesus Christ declares himself to be Lord even of the Sabbath day,\n(Matt. 12:8,) and he takes his title thus: _The Sabbath,_ saith he,\n_was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of\nMan is Lord even of the Sabbath day._ Here seems to be two things from\nwhence Christ takes this title. First, the Sabbath was made for man,\nthat is, as before was said, for Adam, and so for all men, being made\nfor him before his fall. Now, Christ being the Son of Man, the chief\nman, or second Adam, the man of God's right hand, the heir of all\nthings, is of right Lord even of the Sabbath day. Second, the Sabbath\nwas made for man, that is, for the good of man, and in mercy to man,\nas is said before. Therefore, Christ being the author of all good, the\ngiver of all mercy, he is Lord of it; and, therefore, Christ doth not\nslight the Sabbath (as some do imagine) by saying he is Lord of it, as\nthough he were not to keep it, or that his intent was to change it.\nThat were to strip himself of his title, or else to entitle himself\nLord of that which was not. But in that it is said Christ is Lord of\nthe Sabbath, it proves the Sabbath to be in force. As Christ proves\nthe resurrection, in Mark 12:26, 27--_I am the God of Abraham, the God\nof Isaac, the God of Jacob; I am not the God of the dead, but of the\nliving_--so Christ is Lord of the Sabbath day. He is not Lord of the\ndead types and shadows, or of that which is not in being, but he is\nLord of the lively oracles, of which I consider the Sabbath to be one.\nActs 7:38.\n\n_Objection._ But did not Christ break the Sabbath, and teach men so to\ndo, in bidding the impotent man take up his bed and walk, it being\nunlawful to carry a burden upon the Sabbath day?\n\n_Answer._ The scribes and pharisees said so, indeed, and that his bed\nwas a burden; but they were very unfit judges, they being ignorant of\nthe right manner of observing the Sabbath, and seeking likewise to\ntake advantage against Christ in his words and actions. Their saying\nthe man's bed was a burden, and that it was unlawful for him to carry\nit, doth prove no more that was it so, than their saying that the\ndisciples did break the Sabbath in plucking the ears of corn, and\nChrist in healing the diseased. But was not this a work of mercy, the\nman having been lame so long in the porch now being cured? Was it not\nmeet that he should be released from the place, and take his bed with\nhim to lay on at night? (for it is likely he had no other.) And who\ncan say that it was a burden? In some countries that which they call a\nbed is no heavier than a good cloak or coat. But consider what gross\nwickedness naturally flows from this opinion. The objectors\nthemselves, and all, must acknowledge that the whole law was in force\ntill the death of Christ--the very shadows, till he nailed them to his\ncross; then the fourth commandment doubtless was in force. Now, to say\nthat Christ broke it, and taught men so, is to say that Christ sinned,\nand taught men to sin, (for sin is the transgression of the law,) and\nthis roots up redemption by Christ; for if Christ was a sinner, he\ncould not be a Saviour. He had not been a meet offering for the sins\nof others; he had been a sinner himself. But he was offered up a Lamb\nwithout spot, (Heb. 7:26, 1\u00a0Peter 1:19,) and was made sin for us, that\nknew no sin, (2\u00a0Cor. 5:2;) and therefore this objection is made so\ngross, that every sincere heart that sees the tendency of it will not\ntouch it; and indeed I had not mentioned it here, but that many\nthrough weakness have taken it up as a sufficient ground to prove the\nmaking void of the Sabbath, for want of looking into the bottom of it.\n\n6. Another ground to prove the Sabbath yet to be in force, may be\ntaken from the words of Christ to his disciples in Matt. 24:20--_But\npray ye that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the Sabbath\nday_; which is part of the answer Christ gave them when they came\nprivately to him to ask him when the destruction of the temple should\nbe, the signs of his coming, and the end of the world. It is generally\nconceived that this part of Christ's answer relates to the destruction\nof Jerusalem; and, indeed, that is the shortest time that can be\nthought it relates to, as appears by the question which was asked him.\nBut suppose it to be so; doth it not plainly appear from hence, that\nthe Sabbath was to remain in full force after the death of Christ? The\ndestruction of Jerusalem was about forty years after the death of\nChrist, and yet he commands his disciples to pray that their flight be\nnot in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. Now, can we think that\nChrist would lay such a foundation for superstition, as though the\nSabbath was to be at the ruin of Jerusalem, when it was to cease at\nhis death? Or can we think that Christ would teach his disciples to\npray false, or to pray that their flight should not be on the Sabbath,\nwhen indeed there was to be no Sabbath? This is gross to imagine; for\nas sure as winter was to remain winter, so the Sabbath was to remain\nthe Sabbath. And if their flight had been upon it, it would have been\nthe more tedious, it being a day of rest and refreshment to them,\nwherein they used to rejoice and praise the Lord, as appears by that\nsong for the Sabbath day, in Psalm 92. But although this Scripture\nlooks to the destruction of Jerusalem, yet I conceive that it looks\nfarther, even to that distress that Jerusalem shall be in at the\nsecond coming of Christ, and that for these reasons:--\n\n1st. Those things that Christ spake of were accomplished in a measure\nin the apostles' days; and yet they are not completely fulfilled. For\ninstance, Christ told his disciples that they should be delivered up\nto be killed, and they should be hated of all nations for his name's\nsake. This was in the apostles' days, and hath been since; and false\nprophets did arise then, and so they have since. So that those things\nwhich Christ spake looked to several times, and therefore, I conceive,\nhe saith, _Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till\nall these things be fulfilled._ So I judge that what he spake\nconcerning Jerusalem had not only respect to that destruction that\ncame upon it during that generation, but also to that great calamity\nthat should be upon it in the last days.\n\n2d. This will more plainly appear, if we consider the words of Christ,\n_But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the Sabbath\nday; for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the\nbeginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be._ Matt.\n24:20, 21. Now, with this compare Zech. 14:2, _For I will gather all\nnations against Jerusalem to battle, and they shall be taken, and the\nhouses rifled, and the women ravished._ And in the third and fourth\nverses it is said, _Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against\nthose nations, as when he fought in the day of battle, and his feet\nshall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives._ With which compare\nDan. 12:1, 2, _And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great\nPrince, which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall\nbe a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even\nto that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered,\nevery one that shall be found, written in the book. And many of them\nthat sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting\nlife, and some to shame and everlasting contempt._ Now, if that great\ndestruction of Jerusalem produced such great trouble as never was, nor\never should be again, how is it that there shall be such great trouble\nas never was since there was a nation, when Michael stands up to\ndeliver the people, every one that is written in the book, and\nJerusalem is taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished,\nwhen the Lord comes forth to fight against those nations, and his feet\nshall stand upon the Mount of Olives, according to that text in Acts\n1:11, _So shall he come in like manner as ye have seen him go into\nheaven_; and when the seventh angel pours out his vial, (Rev. 16:17,\n18,) which time I conceive is one and the same with that in Zechariah\nand Daniel--and the angel is Michael, the great prince which Daniel\nspeaks of, whose feet shall stand upon the Mount of Olives--then is\nthe time of great trouble, and such an earthquake as was not since men\nwere upon the face of the earth, so mighty an earthquake and so great.\nSo that to me it appears, that these three Scriptures do correspond\nwith the words of Christ, pointing out the same time; and if so, then\nthe Sabbath shall remain till the coming of Christ, and so shall stand\ntill heaven and earth pass away, according to the passage in Matt.\n5:18; and for ever and ever, according to that in Psalm 111:8; and the\ndestruction of Jerusalem seems to be a type of that great destruction\nthat shall be at Christ's appearance. And, as Jerusalem was taken when\nsome from all nations were gathered together, as history reports, and\non the Sabbath day it was destroyed, so it appears that the strength\nof the saints will be gathered together at Jerusalem, because all\nnations will gather against it, and Jerusalem's strait will be upon\nthe Sabbath day, as seems to appear by the words of Christ, for then,\nsaith he, shall be great tribulation, such as never was; (then! when?\nwhy, when their flight shall be upon the Sabbath day;) and this great\ntribulation is when Jerusalem shall be taken, the houses rifled, and\nthe women ravished, as was said before; _at which time Michael shall\nstand up and fight against these nations, as when he fought in the day\nof battle; and the slain of the Lord shall be many, even from one end\nof the earth to the other_, (Jer. 25:31-33,) _and the Mount of Olives\nshall cleave in the midst thereof, and there shall be a very great\nvalley, into which the saints shall flee_, (Zech. 14:5.) Then shall\nthe Sabbath be swallowed up in the great Sabbath of a thousand years,\nthat glorious and holy rest which the saints shall enter into, and\nlive and reign with Christ. Rev. 20:4.\n\n7. Another ground is taken from the practice of Christ's disciples\nafter his death, as recorded in Luke 23:5, 6, _And they returned and\nprepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day according to\nthe commandment._ Some say, that if we do observe the Sabbath, we must\ndo all those sacrifices which the Jews did upon it. But at this time\nthe veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, and the\nshadows were done away by the body of Christ, and yet they kept the\nSabbath, not through fear or ignorance, but according to the\ncommandment, which is to rest from their labors; and so they did, for\nthe text saith, _they returned and rested_. There is no sacrifice\nexpressed in the commandment, _The stranger and the cattle were to\nrest on the Sabbath._ Exod. 20:10. So that the Sabbath was commanded\nand observed before any of those sacrifices were commanded to be\noffered upon it. But because the Jews did such a service upon the\nSabbath day, as they were a typical people, it doth not follow that\nthis was any part of the commandment; and therefore we are to rest, as\nthose disciples did, according to the commandment. It is remarkable,\nthat the Holy Ghost should leave this thing upon record, which would\nnot have been, I am persuaded, had the Sabbath then been abolished. He\ndoth not only say, they returned and rested on the Sabbath day, but,\nto prevent all mistakes, lest it should be thought they did it\nignorantly or superstitiously, or for fear of the Jews, he saith they\ndid it groundedly, that is, according to the commandment.\n\n_Obj._ But the disciples were met together upon the first day of the\nweek, and Christ appeared unto them. John 20:9.\n\n_Ans._ It is true, they were assembled together upon the same day at\neven, being the first day of the week, with the door shut; and the\ncause is laid down why they were so, namely, for fear of the Jews.\nSome of the disciples, as I said before, kept the Sabbath the day\nbefore, and I think we can not reasonably imagine but that those did\nwho were together on the first day, for they did frequently correspond\ntogether, that is manifest. But what doth their being together on the\nfirst day evening, and Christ's appearing to them, prove for the\nobservation of the first day, more than his appearing to them eight\ndays after, and appearing to them the third time early in the morning\nwhen they were fishing, (John 21:4, 5,) for the observation of those\ndays? It was necessary that Christ should appear to his disciples on\nthe first day of the week, that his word might be fulfilled of his\nrising the third day, so that they might boldly witness the same.\n\n_Obj._ But the disciples came together on the first day of the week,\nand did break bread, and Paul preached unto them. Acts 20.\n\n_Ans._ This is all the meeting or preaching that ever we find held\nupon the first day, except the disciples being together for fear of\nthe Jews, mentioned before, at evening. So this seemed to be, because\nwhen they came together Paul preached with them, continuing his speech\nuntil midnight. It is not likely, then, that they observed the day and\ncame together in the morning, seeing he continued his speech so long.\nAnd, as we have the cause of the disciples being together with their\ndoors shut, so we have the cause of this meeting. Paul was ready to\ndepart on the morrow upon an extraordinary occasion, and he had many\nthings to communicate to them, as appears by his discoursing with them\ntill midnight, and talking till break of day. But that which makes the\nobjectors lay such stress upon this text, is because the disciples\ncame together to break bread, which they judge to be the Lord's\nSupper. Suppose it were so, what doth this make for the observation of\nthe first day, more than Christ's first instituting the Supper upon\nthe fifth day of the week, (as is generally conceived,) doth make for\nthe observation of it? But we have no proof that this was the Supper\nof the Lord that they came to partake of, but it seems to be such\nbreaking of bread as the margin of some Bibles refers to. Acts 2:46.\n_They continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking\nbread from house to house, and did eat their meat with gladness of\nheart._ So in Luke 24:30, 35. And it is explained what kind of\nbreaking of bread it was, where it is said, when he was risen up\nagain, and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a good while, till\nbreak of day, he departed. Here is eating and talking; it is not\nsolemnized as the Lord's Supper. Some would have this common breaking\nof bread, and the other in verse 7, to be the Lord's Supper; but it is\nvery unlikely that there should be two sorts of breaking of bread at\none time, by the same persons, and yet nothing spoken distinctly by\nwhich we might know the one from the other. The most that can be said,\nis but a supposition; it can not be proved that this was the Lord's\nSupper. How weak a ground this is for the observation of this day as a\nSabbath, or more than any other day, or to limit the administration of\nthe Lord's Supper to this day, I leave to the truly wise in heart to\njudge.\n\n_Obj._ But the church had their gatherings upon the first day of the\nweek, by which it appears that it was the day that they met together\nupon. 1\u00a0Cor. 16:2.\n\n_Ans._ The words are these, _Upon the first day of the week let every\none of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there\nbe no gatherings when I come_. Here is no proof of their meeting\ntogether, but rather the contrary, every one was to lay by him in\nstore as God had prospered him; no public gathering, but private\nlaying up. But because the Apostle saith, in the close of the verse,\n_that there be no gatherings when I come_, therefore it is thought the\nScripture can not be so understood, because it would not prevent\ngatherings. But is this fair, when a text of Scripture stands alone,\nto put such a sense upon it as doth contradict the very letter of\nit--when it saith, let every one of you lay by him in store, then to\nsay the meaning is to have public gatherings and but one store? And\nwould not the end of the Apostle be fully answered, namely, to have no\ngatherings, if each of them did lay by in store, as God had prospered\nthem in the world, ready against the Apostle came, they knowing of his\ncoming? And when he came, was it not as easy to carry it with them to\nhim, as for us to carry our Bibles to a meeting; and what need would\nthere be then of gatherings? And this way of giving would not be\npharisee-like, but according to the words of Christ, in Matt. 6:1-4,\n_Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them;\notherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. But\nwhen thou doest thine alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right\nhand doeth; that thine alms may be in secret; and thy Father which\nseeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly._\n\n_Obj._ But John was in the spirit on the Lord's day, (and had the\nvarious revelations upon it,) which is conceived to be the first day\nof the week. Rev. 1:10.\n\n_Ans._ It is true, John was in the spirit on the Lord's day. But the\nquestion will be, what day that was. If any particular one of the\nseven, it must have been the Sabbath, for no other day is so called\nbut that. God calls it his holy day in Isa. 58:13, and Christ saith he\nis Lord even of the Sabbath day. And if so, then it is his day, for he\nis Lord of it, and that by way of eminence; not, as some would have\nit, to show that he is Lord of every day, but as it is the Sabbath;\nfor so it is said the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. So\nthat this notion that the Lord's day is the first day, is merely taken\nup on trust one from another, without one word of Scripture to prove\nit.\n\n_Obj._ But it will be yet objected, by those that are for no Sabbath,\nin the words of the Apostle in Col. 2:16, 17, _Let no man therefore\njudge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of\nthe new-moon, or of the Sabbath-days, which are a shadow of things to\ncome, but the body is of Christ_; whence it is concluded that the\nSabbath was but a shadow, and none are to be judged for not observing\nit.\n\n_Ans._ There were holy-days and Sabbaths besides the seventh-day\nSabbath, or the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, for so it is called in\nthe commandment, as doth appear in Lev. 23:39. Now, because it is\nimplied by the words of the Apostle, that Sabbaths were shadows, to be\ndone away by the body of Christ, doth it therefore follow that all\nSabbaths were so, any more than the words of the Apostle that men\nshall be saved, prove that all men shall be saved? And if we consider\nthe verses before, it will plainly appear, that the Apostle was not\nspeaking of any of the ten commandments. In verse 15, the Apostle is\nspeaking to the Gentiles, showing how they were dead in sins, and in\nthe uncircumcision of their flesh, but are now quickened by Christ,\nand all their trespasses forgiven them. In verse 14, he shows what\nfarther benefit they had by the death of Christ, Blotting out the\nhand-writing of ordinances, which was against us, and contrary to us,\nhe took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and the Scripture\non which the objection is founded hath its dependence upon that which\ncomes in with, Therefore let no man judge you in meats, and drinks,\n&c.; as though the Apostle had said, Forasmuch as Christ hath blotted\nout and nailed to his cross those ordinances which are against the\nGentiles, you are not to be judged for the non-performance of them.\nNow the ten commandments were never against the Gentiles, nor contrary\nto them; for the same Apostle saith the matter of them was written in\ntheir hearts, as was said before, and they did by nature the things\ncontained in them, and therefore they were not contrary to them. But\ncircumcision and other ordinances stood as a wall against the\nGentiles, which Christ broke down, by taking them out of the way and\nnailing them to the cross, _having abolished in his flesh the enmity,\neven the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in\nhimself of twain one new man, so making peace that he might reconcile\nboth unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity\nthereby_. Eph. 2:15. So that it is clear, that the Apostle is speaking\nof such commandments as were contained in ordinances, and not those\ncommandments that were eminently distinguished from ordinances; but\nthose ordinances which were against the Gentiles, and made them and\nthe Jews two, as did drinks, new-moons, holy-days, and Sabbath-days,\nChrist by his blood having taken these away, hath made them one. That\nthe ten commandments should be struck at, there is no cover in this\nScripture for, or that the Sabbath should only be taken from them and\nnailed to the cross with new-moons, meats, and other shadows and\nordinances which were against man. But Christ saith, The Sabbath was\nmade for man. So that in this place there is no proof for the\nabrogation of this command of God. But for a more full answer see my\nother book.\n\n_Obj._ How is it that the Apostle saith, in Rom. 14:5, 6, _that one\nman esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day\nalike_, and yet he does not reprove either of them?\n\n_Ans._ I make no doubt but if the controversy here alluded to had been\nabout the Sabbath, whether it were to be observed or not, it would\nhave been plainly expressed, and not passed over so slightly. But the\nApostle is speaking of _indifferent things_, which men were not to be\njudged for their doing or not doing, and not of commandments. Because\nit is said that some esteem every day alike, therefore some conclude\nthat this takes away the Sabbath day; but we must compare Scripture\nwith Scripture, adopt such a sense as may bring them into harmony, and\nsometimes explain general terms by restrictive Scriptures. For\ninstance, Christ says to his disciples, _Go preach the gospel to every\ncreature_; we must understand it to mean to every creature that is in\na condition to hear the gospel. The Apostle saith, that every creature\nof God is good, and nothing to be refused. But some are poison, and\nare to be refused. So is every day alike, that is, every working day,\nwhich God hath made alike; but the seventh day he hath sanctified and\nmade a Sabbath of rest, and so not like the others. This\ninterpretation is according to that Scripture in Exod. 16:4, _Behold,\nI will rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and\ngather a certain rate every day_; and in verse 12, _They gathered\nevery morning every man according to his eating, yet on the Sabbath\nday there was none to gather._ And in our common speech it is so; we\ncall the six days every day. Men say, we work every day, or we travel\nso far every day, when they mean only the six days that they count\nworking days. So the Apostle, speaking to them that kept the Sabbath,\nspeaks in the same language, and we have no ground to think otherwise;\nfor there is no Scripture that we find before this that hath any\nseeming dislike against the observation of the Sabbath, but the\ncontrary.\n\n_Obj. Ye observe days, and years, and times, and months; I am afraid\nof you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain._ Gal. 4:10, 11.\n\n_Ans._ This cannot be understood that the Apostle here strikes at the\nmere observation of days, a thing of such dangerous consequence, for\nhe would not have them judged that observed one day above another. In\nRom, 14:5, 6, and in this place, he himself judges these as persons\nthat had so far degenerated, that he was afraid he had bestowed upon\nthem labor in vain; but it is manifest that these Galatians were gone\nback to circumcision, and so were debtors to the whole law, seeking\njustification thereby. Gal. 5:2-4. So they observed days and years,\naccording to the law that was a shadow of good things to come,\nsolemnizing the days, and months, and years, with those things that\nwere appointed for them, as burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, the\nwaving of the sheaf, the Passover, and Feast of Unleavened Bread, and\nthe like, as may be seen at large in Lev. 23:8-11; for they could not\nbe said to observe times, and months and years, according to the law,\nexcept they did such service. And this gave the Apostle just ground to\nfear that he had bestowed on them labor in vain. But to imagine that\nto observe the Sabbath according to the commandment, or to observe a\nday voluntarily to the Lord, is so dangerous, is contrary both to\nScripture and reason.\n\n_Obj._ We who believe are entered into rest, of which the Sabbath was\nbut a type, as appeals by the words of the Apostle in Heb. 4:3.\n\n_Ans._ If eternal rest by faith be the antitype of the Sabbath, the\nSabbath ceased to be in force to every man so soon as he believed;\nwhich is ridiculous to think, and contrary to the current of\nScripture. But the Apostle saith, _We who believe do enter into rest;\nfor he that is entered into his rest is ceased from his own works, as\nGod did from his. Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest\nany man fall after the example of unbelief._ Heb. 4:10, 11. Mind this\nchapter well, and I am persuaded you will see that the drift of the\nApostle, in mentioning the seventh day here, is but to amplify and set\nforth that perfect rest which they that believe do and shall enjoy, of\nwhich the land of Canaan was but a type; and to show that God's rest\nwas before the Land of Canaan, and that there yet remains a rest to\nthe people of God. As God did rest the seventh day from all his works,\nso they that enter into rest do cease from their own works, as God did\nfrom his. And this is not as soon as men believe, for the Apostle\nprovokes himself and others which were believers to labor to enter\ninto it. And therefore, if you will have the Sabbath, a type from this\nScripture, though it is nowhere so called, it must be a type of\neternal rest, which saints do enter into when they cease from their\nown works, as God did from his. And that will not be till they lay\ndown this tabernacle, which will not affect the thing asserted. And\nindeed I cannot deny but the Sabbath is an earnest of that rest, and\nsaints that are spiritual in the observation of it find it so, and of\ngreat use to put them in mind of that glorious rest, as the bread and\nwine in the Lord's Supper put us in mind of the sufferings of Christ;\nso this being a day of rest and delight, being striped of all worldly\nincumbrances, and devoted to the Lord, to pray unto him, and to praise\nhis holy name, to meditate upon heaven and heavenly glory.\n\n_Obj._ But many say, If the Sabbath be in force, then the penalty must\nneeds be so, and then those that do not keep it must be stoned;\ntherefore this opinion is dangerous, and will lead saints to destroy\none another.\n\n_Ans._ This is a very showy objection, but indeed it is a very weak\none. I do not find that any more than one was stoned, and it was for\npresumptuous breaking of the Sabbath. But suppose that penalty be in\nforce; every saint is not a magistrate to put it in execution. If a\nsaint should kill a man, saints as they are saints are not to execute\nhim; all that they can do is to endeavor his repentance, but it\nbelongs to the true magistrate to inflict the punishment. The penal\nlaws of God take hold of presumptuous sinners, not for sins of\nignorance, and therefore it is not to be thought that any punishment\nwill be inflicted upon any for a breach of the Sabbath till it be\nuniversally acknowledged. So then, if God hath annexed the penalty of\ndeath to the breaking of it, doubtless it will be just. But we find in\nNehemiah's time, that although they had made a market-day of the\nSabbath, treading of wine-presses, lading of asses, and selling of all\nmanner of provisions upon it, yet he doth but contend with them. He\ncontends with the Jews of Jerusalem, the nobles of Judah, and the men\nof Tyre, but inflicts no punishment on either. Neh. 13:15-17, 21. But\nwhat a strange thing is this, that men should count it a dangerous\nopinion, to hold that the Sabbath is in force, because of the penalty!\nSuppose it be so; the same may be said of the rest of the\ncommandments. For instance, the first commandment is, _Thou shalt have\nno other gods before me_; he that worshiped a strange god was to be\nput to death. Now, shall we not own this commandment, because the\nbreakers of it were so punished? Again, _He that sheddeth man's blood,\nby man shall his blood be shed._ Now, is there any danger in the\nowning of this commandment, _Thou shalt do no murder_, because the\npunishment is in force? Again, the fifth commandment is, _Honor thy\nfather and thy mother_, but he that cursed father or mother was to be\nput to death. Now, shall we not honor father and mother, and so shall\nwe break this commandment, because this punishment belongs to the\nbreakers of it? So this objection is of no weight or use at all,\nexcept it be as a bear-skin put upon the truth to frighten children\naway, lest they should look into it.\n\n_Obj._ But we do not find any of the apostles urge this commandment in\nany of their epistles, namely, that the Sabbath day should be observed.\n\n_Ans._ Neither do we find the apostles urging the first, second, or\nthird commandment in particular, as laid down in the table, but they\nare frequently urged in the general, as in Rom. 7:12, 13:8-10, and\ngenerals comprehend particulars. James saith, _Whosoever shall keep\nthe whole law, yet offend in one point, is guilty of all_; and he\nproves it thus, _Because he that said, Do not commit adultery, said\nalso, Do not kill; now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill,\nthou art become a transgressor of the law._ The same argument may be\ndrawn from the thing in hand. He that saith, Do not commit adultery,\nsaith also, Keep the Sabbath; now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if\nthou break the Sabbath, thou art become a transgressor of the law.\nJames 2:10, 11. And Paul saith, _Circumcision is nothing, and\nuncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of\nGod._ 1\u00a0Cor. 7:19. John saith, in his first epistle, chapter 5:2, 3,\n_By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God\nand keep his commandments; for this is the love of God, that we keep\nhis commandments, and his commandments are not grievous._ And if the\napostles had not spoken a word to this commandment, in general or in\nparticular, it is no ground for us to lay it by, except the\nobservation of it were forbidden, because it is so plainly commanded\nby God, explained by Christ, observed by his disciples, both before\nand after his death, as was said before, and will farther appear by\nand by.\n\n_Obj._ But we do not find that any of the churches kept the Sabbath.\n\n_Ans._ That is no proof that they did not keep it. But it is clear\nthat the church of Jerusalem kept it, though it is not plainly\nexpressed, for they were so zealous for the very customs, that Paul is\ncounseled to purify himself, lest they should be offended at him. Acts\n21:21, 24. Now, if they were for the observation of those things that\nwere but shadows, there is no doubt but they were very strict for the\nobservation of the Sabbath. And there was such offence taken against\nPaul for preaching against circumcision and the customs, that we need\nnot question, if the Sabbath had been preached against, but we should\nhave heard a great noise of it in the Scriptures, and seen strong\nconvincing reasons why it was abolished. And it is as clear that the\napostles kept the Sabbath after the resurrection of Christ as before.\n_Paul went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down, and\nafter the reading of the law preached the gospel, and told them of the\nignorance of those that dwelt at Jerusalem of the voice of the\nprophets which were read every Sabbath day. And the Gentiles besought\nhim that these words might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. And the\nnext Sabbath came almost the whole city together to hear the word of\nGod._ Acts 13:14, 15, 42, 44. So that it is clear, that the Sabbath\nwas Paul's resting-day and preaching-day, both to the Jews and\nGentiles, that being the day that the Gentiles used to hear; and\nthough they had a desire to hear the same words again, yet it must be\nnext Sabbath; and Paul fulfills their desire, and preaches to them the\nnext Sabbath, and almost the whole city came to hear. Can we think, if\nthere had been no Sabbath, that Paul would have countenanced them so\nin their ignorance? Or, if the first day had been a day that was\nobserved, would he not have told them so, that they might have heard\nthe word before the next Sabbath. And when Paul came to Philippi, a\nGentile city, mind what is said in Acts 16:12, 13, _We were in that\ncity abiding certain days, and on the Sabbath day we went out of the\ncity by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made, and we sat\ndown and spake unto the women that resorted thither._ The seventh day\nhath its title still, as is said by the Spirit in Acts; speaking of\ncertain days, this is singled out and called the Sabbath day, with an\naccount how they spent it, and the blessing they received upon it;\nthey resorted to the place of prayer, and there they preached, and the\nLord opened Lydia's heart to attend to the words of Paul. And in Acts\n17:2, it is said, _That Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them,\nand three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures._ And\nwhen Paul came to Corinth, which was a Gentile city, and found Aquila,\na Jew, and his wife Priscilla, and because they were of the same\ncraft, he abode with them, and wrought, for by occupation they were\ntent-makers, _he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath day, and\npersuaded the Jews and Greeks_. Acts 18:2-4. So that it is manifest,\nthat the Greeks kept the Sabbath as well as the Jews, and that though\nPaul wrought at his trade and made tents, yet he rested every Sabbath\nday; and as we have an account how he spent his time, namely, in\nworking at his trade, so we have an account how he spent his time on\nthe Sabbath. Now, if it be such a strong argument for the observation\nof the first day, because Paul preached upon it once; what is this for\nthe observation of the seventh day, that Paul did not only preach\nconstantly upon it, but wherever the Spirit speaks of it he calls it\nthe Sabbath day, without the least hint that he did so out of\ncondescension to the weakness of others? And let it be shown by the\nScriptures that the apostles did countenance and own any shadow that\nwas done away, as they owned and countenanced the keeping of the\nSabbath, and we may follow the apostles as they followed the Lord in\nthis matter, though we have no express word that the churches kept it.\nAnd, indeed, I think I may say in this case, as the Apostle said in\nanother, that it would have been superfluous for the apostles to have\ntold any people in their time that such and such a church kept the\nSabbath; it being a truth not so much as questioned, that we hear of,\nbut Jews and Gentiles both observed it. But now I cease answering\nobjections, as I have spoken to those that are the most material of\nthem that I have heard, and I shall proceed to another ground.\n\n8. Consider the bondage and slavery that both man and beast would be\nin if this doctrine were received for truth. Would it not now, however\nhave the tendency to bring the world more to atheism? Some men would\nnot allow themselves nor their servants time to rest, or hear the word\nof God, if they were persuaded that there was no Sabbath; yea, and the\ngreater part of saints are left to the mercy of merciless men, most of\nthem being children, and wives, and servants; and they cannot\nchallenge a day in seven, or a day in seventy, as their right to rest\nupon, and to worship the Lord in, from any commandment of God, if this\ndoctrine be true, that the Sabbath is abolished. And were this but to\nbring a yoke of bondage upon us, that neither we nor our fathers were\nable to bear, we should not so much as take notice at this time how it\ngoes in probability, for the way of numbering is by sevens.\n\nBut some will say, It is good to observe one day in seven, though it\nbe not a constant day. This will be confessed, for one to observe one\nday, and another to observe another day, while others are for a\nseventh day to be constantly observed. But why not the seventh day\nwhich God hath commanded, for the seventh day is the Sabbath? It\nplainly appears, that there is something of the table-law yet upon the\ntable of the hearts of most men, though worn by much transgression;\nfor men generally plead to have one day in seven to rest in, and yet\nbecause of custom they contend against this holy, just law of God,\nthat was made in mercy for man. I am persuaded in my very heart, and\nthat not without good ground, that if the seventh day had been\nobserved as the first day is, no man that owns the Scriptures would\nhave questioned whether it ought to be observed or not, or at least no\nopposition would have been made against it; and when all is said,\ncustom and worldly interest are the two great things that stand in\nopposition to it.\n\n9. And lastly, consider those great and precious promises made to them\nthat keep the Sabbath according to the inside and spirituality of it;\nnot that we are so to spiritualize it as to make void the letter, but\naccording to the letter, as Christ doth. For instance, he saith, _Ye\nhave heard that it hath been said of old time, Thou shalt not commit\nadultery; but I say unto you, Whosoever looketh on a woman and lusteth\nafter her, hath committed adultery with her in his heart._ Now, if it\nbe adultery to lust, doubtless it is to act, and this is forbidden in\nthe commandment, for the commandment is, _Thou shall not commit\nadultery_; but Christ unfolds this commandment, and gives such a sense\nof it as the scribes and pharisees understood not. Again, the sixth\ncommandment is, _Thou shalt do no murder_; and John saith, _Whosoever\nhateth his brother is a murderer._ John 3:15. Now, all murder was\nforbidden in the commandment, yet this was not understood to be\nmurder; but John obeyed the spirituality of the commandment. And the\nsame may be said of the fourth commandment, _Remember the Sabbath day\nto keep it holy_; all servile work is forbidden in it, and that the\npharisees understood; but they did not understand that works of mercy,\nas curing the sick, and healing the diseased, might be done upon it.\nNeither did they understand that inward and spiritual rest that was\nheld out in the commandment, as appears by the words of the Lord in\nIsa. 58:13, 14, _If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from\ndoing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the\nholy of the Lord, honorable, and shalt honor him, not doing thine own\nways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words._\nSo that the saints are not only to cease from outward work in their\ncallings, but also from works that are inward and spiritually wicked,\nthat so the Sabbath may be a delight unto them, the holy of the Lord,\nhonorable. And mark the promise that is to such Sabbath-keepers, in\nthe fourteenth verse, _Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord,\nand I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and\nwill feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of\nthe Lord hath spoken it._ First, they shall delight themselves in the\nLord, and that will make the Sabbath a delight. Second, they shall\nride upon the high places of the earth; the high places of the earth\nholding forth, as I conceive, the great opposition, whether of great\nand mighty men, or great walled cities, according to that in Deut.\n1:28, which hath an allusion to Israel's subduing the land of Canaan.\nDeut. 32:13. Thou shalt ride upon them, that is, subdue and conquer\nthem. Psalm 45:4, 66:12. _They shall tread upon their high places._\nDeut. 33:39. _They shall be as ashes under the soles of their feet._\nMal. 4:3. Now, when did the Lord's people do such work as this since\nthis prophesy? or, is it yet to be fulfilled?\n\nAgain, consider what the Lord saith in Isa. 56:6, 7, _Also the sons of\nthe stranger that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to\nlove the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth\nthe Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant, even\nthem will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my\nhouse of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be\naccepted upon mine altar, for mine house shall be called an house of\nprayer to all people._ By the sons of the stranger, I understand is\nhere meant Gentiles, who were strangers to the commonwealth of Israel\nand afar off, but are now made nigh by the blood of Christ, and so\nthey join themselves to the Lord, and serve him, and love the name of\nthe Lord; these are such as keep the Sabbath, and take hold of God's\ncovenant, and it is such a Sabbath as may be polluted, and therefore\nnot Christ's, as some would have it. Now, the promises that are made\nto these strangers, do look at clear gospel times.\n\nThey shall be brought into God's holy mountain, and there be made\njoyful, when it is so mountainous that it is the house of prayer for\nall people, or for all nations, as Christ saith in Matt. 11:17.\n_Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that taketh\nhold on it, that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth\nhis hand from doing any evil. Thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs\nthat keep my Sabbath, and choose the things that please me, and take\nhold on my covenant, even unto them will I give a name and a place\nbetter than of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting\nname, that shall not be cut off._ Isa. 56:2, 4, 5. The eunuchs are\nsuch as care for the things that please the Lord, when the married\ncareth for the things that please his wife. Cor. 7:32, 33. And when\ntwo parts shall be cut off and die, the eunuchs that keep the Sabbath\nshall have an everlasting name, which shall not be cut off.\n\nNow, let us not think it incredible that the Sabbath should be yet in\nforce, because it hath been so long laid aside; it hath been so with\nother truths, and so with this, before now. It seemed to be so out of\nknowledge with Israel in the wilderness, that when the people had\ngathered twice as much manna on the sixth day, they did not understand\nthe meaning of it; but the nobles came and told Moses, and he told\nthem what the Lord had said, that to-morrow should be the rest of the\nholy Sabbath. And also, after their coming out of Babylon, when they\nhad built the house of God, and set it in order, placing the priests\nand Levites, and had chosen faithful men to distribute the maintenance\nto their brethren. Neh. 13:10, 13. In a word, their reformation was\nmuch about the light of ours, and it is confessed by the enlightened\nthat it was a type of this reformation that the Lord hath begun\namongst us in these isles, namely, in bringing his people out of\nBabylon, and building up of Zion; and, indeed, as their sins and ours\nare alike in many things, so in this, namely in breaking the fourth\ncommandment; for Nehemiah saith, in chap. 13:15, that in those days he\nsaw in Judah some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath, and lading\nasses, and bringing in sheaves, as also wine, grapes, and figs, and\nall manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem upon the\nSabbath day; and he testified against them in the day wherein they\nsold victuals. Notwithstanding all the reformation, yet this was seen\nin Judah. They had laid by the observation of the Sabbath, and had\nmade it a common working, market day, as may be seen at large in that\nchapter. It was not in vain, therefore, that the Lord said, _Remember\nthe Sabbath_, he foreseeing how it would be slighted and forgotten,\nnot only by those that were brought out of literal Babylon, but also\nby those that should be brought out of spiritual Babylon in the latter\ndays; and when the day of the Lord burns as an oven, it will be\nremembered to some purpose. Mal. 4:4. In the mean time, the Lord is\nstirring up some of his poor babes and sucklings. Such he is pleased\nusually to discover truth unto at the first breaking out of it, and\nthey are to contend for it, though in much weakness.\n\nBut a word to the beginning and ending of the Sabbath. There are\nvarious apprehensions about it, which, for brevity's sake, I shall\nomit. The Scripture is plain, that from evening to evening is the set\ntime, or from the going down of the sun to the going down of the sun.\nThis is clear from the beginning, according to Gen. 1:5, _The evening\nand the morning was the first day_. The evening and morning make a\ncomplete natural day, and the evening goeth before the morning,\nbecause the darkness was before the light.\n\n_Obj._ But some will say, It is not said the evening and the morning\nwas the seventh day.\n\n_Ans._ If the evening and the morning be the sixth day, the evening\nand the morning must needs be the seventh day, unless we should think\nthat the seventh day hath no night belonging to it. Some think that\nthe reason why no mention is made of the evening of the seventh day,\nis, because the Sabbath is a day of joy and delight, or an earnest of\nthe new Jerusalem state, wherein shall be no night. Rev. 21:25. Night\ndoth frequently, in the Scripture, hold forth a state of affliction,\nbut the Sabbath is a holy, sanctified time; on it the Creator rested\nand was refreshed, and commanded the observation of it that his\ncreatures might be refreshed.\n\nNehemiah's practice is sufficient proof for the beginning of the\nSabbath at evening, (chap. 13:19,) who, when the gates of Jerusalem\nbegan to be dark, commanded them to be shut till after the Sabbath.\nAnd if you would know when the evening begins, the evangelist Mark\ndoth inform you in chapter 1:32, _At even, when the sun did set, they\nbrought unto him all that were diseased_. When the sun doth set, then\nbegins the evening, then begins the holy rest or seventh-day Sabbath.\nSo the disciples of Christ began the Sabbath; and so the Lord's\nancient people celebrate the Sabbath unto this day.\n\nBut what confusion are they in who say the Sabbath was changed from\nthe seventh day to the first day, and yet observe neither, but part of\nthe first day and part of the second day; for they begin their Sabbath\nat midnight, when a good part of the first day is spent, and they end\nat midnight, when a good part of the second day is spent; and yet they\nwill have this to be a Sabbath, yea, and a first day Sabbath, and will\nhighly charge a man to be an offender if he work one hour upon the\nfirst day, though themselves work five; and thus we see how\nanti-Christ hath changed times as well as laws; a first-day Sabbath\ninstead of a seventh-day Sabbath; instead of from even to even, from\nmidnight to midnight, when most are fast asleep, being insensible of\nthe beginning of their Sabbath, or the ending of it.\n\nBut, blessed be the Lord, that he hath revealed this his ancient,\nuseful, and honorable truth, to wit, the holy seventh-day Sabbath,\nnotwithstanding all the inventions of anti-Christ to bury it in\noblivion, and that he is pleased to separate a remnant, that are\nresolved to search and try their ways, and to turn unto him, to follow\nhim in the ways of his precepts, (notwithstanding the dragon's wrath,)\nwho will not take things upon trust, nor go upon the legs of men, but\nwill try all things, and hold fast that which is good, for they are\nvirgins, and they will follow the Lamb, though their company be small\nand their charge great. They will not be afraid of the Sabbath because\nit was given to the Jews, any more than they are afraid of the\nadoption, and the glory, and the promises, and the other nine lively\noracles, which were all given to the Jews. Rom. 9:4. And this I may\nmodestly say, to the praise of the Lord of the Sabbath, and without\nboasting, that if the saints did know how the Lord delights to meet\nwith his people in this way of obedience in celebrating the Sabbath,\nthey would soon call the Sabbath _a delight, the holy of the Lord,\nhonorable_, and honor him by ceasing from their own works, as God did\nfrom his, and doing those works which are suitable for the blessed\nseason. But I shall say no more at present, save only this, that\nwhoever they are that would follow the Lord in this appointment of\nhis, they must labor much in the strength of his Spirit to get this\nworld under them, for it stands in direct opposition to earthly men,\nand earthly principles; therefore pray with the Psalmist, _Incline my\nheart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness_.\n\n\n\n\nVINDICATION OF\n\nTHE TRUE SABBATH\n\nIN TWO PARTS:\n\n PART FIRST,\n Narrative of Recent Events;\n\n PART SECOND,\n Divine Appointment of the Seventh Day.\n\n BY J. W. MORTON,\n LATE MISSIONARY OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.\n\n NEW-YORK:\n PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR,\n AT THE SABBATH RECORDER OFFICE,\n No. 9 Spruce Street.\n\n\nPART I.\n\nNARRATIVE OF RECENT EVENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nOn the 13th of December, 1847, I landed with my family in\nPort-au-Prince, Ha\u00efti, the first Foreign Missionary of the Reformed\nPresbyterian Church in the United States. I began my labors soon\nafterwards, and continued them, without serious interruption, till the\n21st of April, 1849, when a train of circumstances, to which I am\nabout to advert, made it necessary that I should return home.\n\nIn the latter part of December, 1848, I was unexpectedly called upon\nto defend the practice of keeping holy the first day of the week, in\nplace of the seventh. I had been taught from my infancy, that the\nmoral law, \"summarily comprehended in the ten commandments,\" is the\nonly rule of moral conduct; and I had supposed, that it required me\nand everybody else to keep the \"Christian Sabbath\" on the first day of\nthe week. On examination, however, I was forced to the conclusion,\nthat the fourth commandment enjoins nothing else than the\nsanctification of the seventh day. Of course, then, I must either\nrenounce this precept, as a part of the rule of my life, or endeavor\nto keep holy the seventh day of the week. The former I might not dare\nto do; the latter I knew I might _attempt_, without offending God, or\ninsulting the majesty of his law.\n\nThe question then came up, Is there any scripture authority for\nkeeping holy the first day? Does God require it? I knew very well,\nthat if God does _not_ require it, I could not, as a Reformed\nPresbyterian, bind my conscience to it. I took up the Bible, resolved\non a prayerful and thorough search. I wished to assure myself of the\ndivine authority of the first day, even after I was satisfied that the\nclaims of the seventh are indisputable. But how was it possible to\ngain this object? Every text to which I was referred for proof seemed\nto lack the very thing that I most wanted, _a certain testimony to the\ninstitution of a Christian Sabbath_. I reasoned thus:--The fact that\nChrist appeared once or twice to his disciples on the first day of the\nweek, and the fact that the disciples met _once_ on that day to break\nbread, and the fact that Paul commanded the Corinthians and Galatians\nto 'lay by them in store' on that day, as God had prospered\nthem--these facts, with a few others, _might_ shed light on the\n_institution_, if _one single text_ could be found, to prove its\n_existence_. But if this can not be found, they do not touch the\nquestion at issue. And how I did long for that _one text_! How I\nchided with the Apostles for not having made known more clearly what I\nhad determined to be the will of God! Never did Rachel mourn for her\nchildren, as I mourned for that _one text_; but, like her, I could not\nbe comforted, because _it was not_!\n\nI was thus driven to the conclusion, that, should I make conscience of\nkeeping holy the first day of the week, I would offer to God a service\nthat he did not require, and could not accept at my hands.\n\nBut what was I to do? This was the great _practical_ question. Could\nI, with my then present views, continue to preach the gospel, as I had\ndone before, in that \"land of darkness, and of the shadow of death?\"\nCould I teach the children in the school, as I had taught them before,\nthat God had changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week? Could I\nproclaim to the benighted heathen, that they might habitually break\nthe fourth commandment with impunity? Could I, as a Protestant\nmissionary, become the partizan of him who thought \"to change times\nand laws,\"[14] by assuring his blinded devotees, that his changes had\nbeen made by divine authority? Or, on the other hand, could I carry\nout my convictions of truth and duty, declaring the whole counsel of\nGod, as I then understood it, and retain, at the same time, my\nconnection with my brethren at home? Would they grant me this\nprivilege, and, if they would, could I accept it?\n\nA little reflection served to convince me, that all these questions\nmust be answered in the negative. It was no small matter, to resolve\nupon breaking those bonds of ecclesiastical fellowship that had so\nsweetly bound me to the Reformed Presbyterian Church. A struggle,\npainful indeed, but not protracted, ensued. I resolved at once to keep\nthe Sabbath in my family, though I feared it would not be honest to\nmake any _public_ exhibition of my views, while I continued to\nminister by the authority of the Synod. I know not what I should have\ndone, had not my change of sentiments brought with it the needed\nconsolations. Whatever were the \"vexing thoughts\" with which my heart\nwas oppressed, during the first six days of the week, I found\ninvariably, in the quiet retreat of my little family, on the seventh,\nthat \"peace of God that passeth all understanding.\" Yes, Ha\u00efti, when\nthe recollection of thy brilliant skies, thy evergreen mountains, and\nthy sweet clear rivers, shall have ceased to awaken joy in my bosom,\nthe memory of thy Sabbaths shall be \"my songs in the house of my\npilgrimage!\"\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nConvinced as I was, that something must be done\nimmediately to bring the subject of my change to\nthe attention of the rulers of our church, before the\nnext meeting of Synod, I prepared the following\nCircular Letter, which I transmitted to more than\nseventy ministers and elders, in different parts of the\nUnited States.\n\n CIRCULAR.\n\n PORT-AU-PRINCE, Ha\u00efti, Jan. 17, 1849.\n\n MY DEAR BROTHER,--The mutual relation existing between us, as members\n of the same Synod, the glory of our common Lord, the interests of our\n Mission, and a sacred regard for personal character, all require,\n that the following statement be transmitted to you and my other\n co-presbyters, with as little delay as possible. If I am not actuated\n herein by a desire to promote God's glory and the salvation of men,\n may the Lord rebuke and forgive me, and \"let the righteous smite me,\n it shall be a kindness!\" May the Head of the Church grant to you, and\n to all the other members of Synod, a disposition to hear, with\n patience and candor, a narration of my recent experience, in which\n perhaps you _may_ find things both \"new and old.\"\n\n My sentiments in relation to the \"Sabbath of the Lord our God,\" have\n undergone an important change; to which I now wish to call your\n attention. Our Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Testimony, all\n teach that the first day of the week is, and has been ever since the\n resurrection of Christ, the Christian Sabbath. This doctrine _alone_,\n of all those contained in our Standards, though I did believe it till\n lately, I can no longer receive. As to the _manner_ of sanctifying\n the Sabbath, I believe all that you and I have always contended for;\n but, for the present, I am constrained to believe, that the seventh\n day of the week is the only weekly Sabbath that God has ever\n appointed.\n\n My attention was first called to this subject by Rev. W. M. Jones,\n Missionary of the Baptist Church, who has recently abandoned his\n earlier views and practice in regard to the Sabbath. He not only\n argued the question with me at length, but gave me some publications\n of the American Sabbath Tract Society, which, as they seemed to\n breathe a spirit of ardent piety and zeal for God's law, I read with\n attention. Both in my discussion with him, and in the reading of\n those tracts, I struggled with all my might to convince myself, from\n the Scriptures, of the divine appointment of the first-day, or\n Christian Sabbath. But though I did not then doubt it, I was\n astonished to find how hard it is to prove it.\n\n I searched all the books I could find, bearing on this question, and\n discovered, what I had never noticed before, that the early French\n and Genevan Reformers, with Calvin at their head, had taught the\n abrogation of the fourth commandment, as a ceremonial institution;\n and that they contended for a Sabbath, or stated day of worship,\n under the gospel, only as a wise and necessary human arrangement. I\n found that even Turretin, at a later period, had taught that the\n fourth commandment is _partly_ ceremonial, and that it was necessary\n to change the Sabbath from the seventh day, in order to put a\n difference between Jews and Christians. I found also, in my books,\n quotations, containing similar sentiments, from the celebrated\n Augsburg Confession. The only authors I could find who had attempted\n to prove, from the Scriptures, that the Sabbath has been changed from\n the seventh to the first day of the week, by divine authority, were,\n Turretin, and the framers of our Standards. Those authors appeared to\n depend _mainly_ for proof upon three texts of Scripture:--Acts 20:7;\n 1\u00a0Cor. 16:1, 2; and Rev. 1:10. When I came to examine these texts, I\n was surprised and mortified, to find that they contain neither the\n word \"Sabbath,\" nor any other synonymous with it. True, I had always\n thought that the \"Lord's day,\" Rev. 1:10, was the first day of the\n week; but my opponents contended that the terms refer more properly\n to the seventh, which God styles \"my holy day,\" Is. 58:13; and when I\n remembered \"his challenging a special propriety in the seventh,\" I\n could not well deny it. Moreover, I could not find a single passage\n asserting that the first is holier than any other day of the week, or\n that Christians were, in the Apostles' days, in the habit of holding\n religious meetings _regularly_ on that day. Neither could I discover\n that Christ or his Apostles had ever spoken, directly or indirectly,\n of keeping a day holy in honor of his resurrection; nor that that\n event, which is always held up as the occasion of the change of the\n Sabbath, is even once mentioned in connection with the first day,\n unless where it is recorded as a historical fact. On the other hand,\n I observed that Christ and his Apostles _were accustomed_ to enter\n into the synagogue on the seventh day, or Sabbath, for public\n worship. Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2, and elsewhere.\n\n Thus, my dear brother, I saw at this critical moment all Scripture\n evidence forsaking me, while every inch of ground on which I could\n set my foot was trembling. It seemed as if the thunders of Sinai were\n uttering anew their awful threatenings, while the \"still small voice\"\n of \"Him that dwelt in the bush\" was whispering in my ears, \"The\n _seventh_ day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.\" Ex. 20:10. \"I am\n Jehovah, I change not.\" Mal. 3:6. \"Verily, I say unto you, till\n heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass\n from the law, till all be fulfilled.\" Matt. 5:18. Still I hesitated.\n For a moment I thought of \"going down to Egypt for help.\" The\n Fathers, thought I, have fixed the interpretation of these texts in\n favor of the observance of the first day. But immediately I heard a\n voice within me, saying, \"Would you then observe a holy-day, whose\n appointment cannot be proved from the Bible, without the aid of human\n tradition? Could you admit the 'testimony of the Fathers,' to set\n aside one of the plainest injunctions of the moral law, that law that\n was written upon tables of stone, 'by the finger of God,' and styled,\n by way of pre\u00ebminence, '_the_ Testimony?'\" No! I replied, with an\n involuntary shudder; and another flood of Scriptures came rushing in,\n like \"deep waters,\" to the very soul. \"The law of the Lord is\n perfect.\" Ps. 19:7. \"Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.\"\n Ps. 119:89. \"Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and\n thy law is the truth.\" Ps. 119:142. \"All his commandments are sure;\n they stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and\n uprightness.\" Ps. 111:7, 8. \"Think not that I am come to destroy the\n law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.\" Matt.\n 5:17. \"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea,\n we establish the law.\" Rom. 3:31. O my brother, \"the word of God is\n quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword.\"\n\n You have now my reasons for embracing a doctrine which is confessedly\n at variance with our Standards. What I entreat of you is, that you\n will once more examine this subject for yourself, and see whether\n those Standards are consistent, on this point, either with the\n Scriptures, or with themselves.\n\n You perhaps think that I have forsaken the \"footsteps of the flock,\"\n and that testimony which has been sealed with the blood of martyrs.\n But tell me candidly, was there ever a martyr who died in defense of\n the first-day Sabbath? Or, could _you_, my brother, collect from the\n Scriptures evidence of its divine appointment, clear enough to solace\n your soul in the midst of the flames? From my inmost soul I pity that\n Covenanter who may be called to testify, at the stake, to the change\n of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.\n Remember, too, that I am now in the path that was trodden by the\n saints for more than four thousand years; and it is for _you_ to show\n that that path was ever stopped up, unless by the presumption and\n inexcusable neglect of man. Truly, I am \"compassed about by a great\n cloud of witnesses.\" I would follow the example of Jehovah himself,\n who \"blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,\" and by whom \"the\n Sabbath was made for man;\" the example of Adam, Enoch, and Noah; of\n Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs; of Moses, Aaron,\n and those millions of Pilgrim Covenanters who united in its\n observance in the wilderness; the example of Samuel, David, and a\n host of other prophets; of Jesus Christ, our Divine Mediator, and\n \"Lord of the Sabbath;\" and of the Apostles of our Lord, together with\n the churches established and watered by them;--in one word, the\n example of all the saints, from Adam to the last Apostle; all of whom\n kept and honored the seventh day as \"the Sabbath of the Lord their\n God,\" and, having finished their course with joy, are entered into\n that heavenly rest, of which that Sabbath was, and still is, an\n emblem.\n\n I intend, if the Lord will, to be present at the next meeting of our\n Synod, and meet my brethren face to face. I expect, of course,\n nothing less than to be excluded from the privileges of the church;\n but I rejoice that I have learned to respect the discipline of the\n Lord's house. I desire, therefore, with a willing heart to approach\n the altar, and, if the Head of the Church require it, to be \"offered\n upon the sacrifice and service of your faith,\" that God may be\n glorified in my salvation, and not in my destruction. God forbid,\n that either prejudice, willful ignorance, passion, or personal\n resentment, should fan the flames of that altar!\n\n In conclusion, rest assured of my continued and unabated attachment\n to the cause of the Reformation, in general, and to the interests of\n the Reformed Presbyterian Church, in particular; and allow me to\n repeat what I have already intimated, that with every other doctrine\n contained in our Standards I am, so far as I understand my\n profession, entirely satisfied; nor have I abandoned _this one_, but\n from a firm conviction that it is not taught in God's Word. I know\n well, that trials sore and many await me. God doth know, that my\n heart delighteth not in contention; but, my brother, have we not all\n \"entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which\n was given by Moses, the servant of God, and to observe and do all the\n commandments of the Lord our God?\" Neh. 10:29.\n\n Your Brother in Gospel bonds,\n J. W. MORTON,\n Missionary of the Ref. Presb. Church\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nOn the 21st of April, 1819, I set sail, with my family, from\nPort-au-Prince, bidding farewell to Ha\u00efti and her children, whom\nperhaps we shall never see again in this vale of tears. We arrived at\nBoston, all in good health, on the first Sabbath in May.\n\nOn the evening of Tuesday, May 22, the Synod was convened in\nPhiladelphia; and the next morning I appeared and took my seat with\nthe other members.\n\nAfter noon, the same day, Rev. David Scott stated to Synod, that I had\nmade known a change of views in relation to the Sabbath, and moved\nthat a committee of three be appointed to confer with me, and report\nwhat farther action should be taken in the case.\n\nWhile this motion was pending, I stated, in substance, that, as I was\nalone in a Synod of more than sixty members, without a single man to\nplead my cause, I thought I had a right to _demand_ that the\nproceedings should be instituted in strict accordance with the letter\nof the law. I was here interrupted by the Moderator, who, having\ninformed me that I had no right to dictate to the Court the method of\nproceeding with its own business, peremptorily ordered me to take my\nseat. I obeyed, of course, though I could not see what dictation there\nwas in demanding a legal trial, according to the printed rules of\nSynod. The motion was carried, and the committee appointed.\n\nNext morning, May 24, I had a conference of half an hour with this\ncommittee, and at noon another, that lasted about the same time. Their\nprincipal object seemed to be, to ascertain whether I was ready to\n_recant_, and submit to censure for my past errors, I assured them,\nthat while I had not the slightest wish to withdraw from the communion\nof the Reformed Presbyterian Church, I adhered to every word in my\nCircular, and must continue to do so, till convinced of error by the\ninfallible scriptures. The committee quoted several texts, and advised\nme to read several authors, after which our conference was closed.\n\nAfter noon they presented their report, recommending that the\nfollowing Libel be preferred against me by Synod:--\n\n LIBEL PREFERRED AGAINST J. W. MORTON.\n\n Whereas, denying that the first day of the week is the day on which\n the Christian Sabbath should be kept, is a heinous sin and scandal,\n contrary to the Word of God, and the Profession of the Reformed\n Presbyterian Church, founded thereon--_Acts_ 20:7, \"And upon the\n first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break\n bread,\" &c.; _Shorter Catechism_, \"From the beginning of the world to\n the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week\n to be the weekly Sabbath, and the first day of the week ever since,\n to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.\"\n\n Yet true it is, that you, Rev. J. W. Morton, are guilty of the\n scandal above stated, in so far as you, the said J. W, Morton, at\n Port-au Prince, Ha\u00efti, 17th of January, 1849, did publish a Circular,\n in which you oppugned and denied that the first day of the week is\n the Christian Sabbath, which being found relevant, and proved against\n you, you ought to be proceeded against by the censures of the Lord's\n House.\n\n A true copy. By order of the Synod.\n [Signed] JOHN WALLACE, Ass't Clerk.\n\nAfter some discussion, the above Libel was decided to be relevant, and\nthe Clerk was directed to serve a copy on me, with citation to appear\nfor trial the next day, after noon.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI went to my lodgings that evening with a heavy heart, I was\nconvinced, from the spirit of determined opposition that had been\nmanifested by many of the brethren, when the Libel was under\nconsideration, that the majority had already determined that I should\nnot be permitted to \"speak for myself.\" True, I knew very well that\nthe Apostle Paul had once enjoyed this liberty, through the cool\ncivility of a Roman Governor, and afterwards, through that of a Roman\nKing; but I knew just _as_ well, that Felix and Aggrippa were\nheathens, while my brethren are Christians; and that the dignity of a\ncourt, composed of \"worms of the dust,\" has been much better\nunderstood, since the famous \"Diet of Worms,\" than ever before.\n\nStill, I could not forbear asking myself, Why is there now such bitter\nopposition to an Institution that was once the delight of both God and\nman? Why do men hate with such perfect hatred what Jehovah made, and\nblessed, and sanctified, before sin had entered into the world? Why\nshould _this_ daughter of Innocence be spurned, from every door, and\nloaded with the damning reproach of Judaism, while her twin sister,\nMarriage, sucks the breasts, and is dandled upon the knees of\nOrthodoxy? Why should I be ranked with thieves and murderers, for\nbelieving that \"the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord my God?\"\nBitter were the tears that flowed; and more bitter still was the\nreflection, that \"when I wept, that was to my reproach.\"\n\nI was hedged in round about, and what could I do? I could only\nexclaim, with the \"sweet Singer of Israel,\" \"Let not them that wait on\nthee, O Lord God of Hosts, be ashamed for my sake; let not those that\nseek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy\nsake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a\nstranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For\nthe zeal of thy house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them\nthat reproached thee are fallen upon me.\" Never shall I forget the\nsensation experienced while the last sentence was passing through my\nmind: \"_And the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen\nupon me_.\" I know not how often, during that night, I repeated these\nwords, and compared them with the exhortation of the Apostle: \"Let us\ngo forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.\"\nThese were the comforts, that, \"in the multitude of my thoughts within\nme,\" then delighted my soul. I was about to go forth \"without the\ncamp;\" and it was indeed refreshing, in that hour of trial, to\nbelieve, that I was bearing a portion of the same burden that had once\nbowed down the \"Man of Sorrows.\"\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nMy trial came on after noon, May 25th. The following extract from the\npublished Minutes of Synod is, I believe, a correct, and sufficiently\nfull, account of the final issue; only it makes no mention of the fact\nthat I protested against the proceedings, and appealed to the head of\nthe Church, for reasons to be given in afterwards. Why this fact was\nnot recorded, I have not been able to ascertain.\n\n EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF SYNOD.\n\n Order of the day, viz., the case of Mr. Morton, called for. The libel\n was then read by the Clerk; when Mr. Morton having, in reply to the\n Moderator, answered that he was prepared for trial, the substance of\n the libel was again stated in his hearing. Mr. Morton was then called\n upon, according to the rule provided for in such cases, either to\n confess the charge or put himself upon his trial. Mr. Morton in\n return acknowledged that he had denied that the day commonly called\n the Christian Sabbath is so by Divine appointment, and then proceeded\n to plead the irrelevancy of the charge by endeavoring to prove the\n perpetuity of the law for the observance of the seventh day. While so\n doing, he was arrested by the Moderator, who informed him that the\n charge contained in the libel was such that Mr. Morton could only\n prove its irrelevancy to censure by proving that the appropriation of\n the first day of the week, known as the Christian Sabbath, to secular\n employments, or teaching so to do, is not relevant to censure, which\n attempt the Moderator would consider disorderly, and would not allow.\n\n From this decision J. M. Willson appealed, when the Moderator's\n decision was unanimously sustained. Upon this Mr. Morton declined the\n authority of the court.\n\n _Resolved_, That Mr. Morton's appointment as missionary to Ha\u00efti be\n revoked.\n\n _Resolved_, That inasmuch as Mr. Morton has now publicly declined the\n authority of this court, he be suspended from the exercise of the\n Christian ministry, and from the privileges of the Reformed\n Presbyterian Church.\n\n The Moderator then publicly pronounced the sentence of suspension on\n Mr. Morton, agreeably to the above resolution.\n\nNot long afterwards I presented to the Moderator the following Reasons\nof Protest and Appeal, with a request that he would allow them to be\nlaid before the court, which he utterly refused to do.\n\n REASONS OF PROTEST AND APPEAL.\n\n I do respectfully protest against the action of Synod in my case, on\n the 24th of the present month, and appeal therefrom to the Lord Jesus\n Christ, the King and Head of the Church, for the following reasons:--\n\n 1st. Because I was not allowed to prove the irrelevancy of the charge\n made against me, by an appeal to the Bible, \"the only rule of faith\n and manners.\"\n\n 2nd. Because I believe that the statements, on the subject of the\n Sabbath, set forth in our subordinate standards, are inconsistent\n with one another, and in part contrary to the Word of God: yet it was\n by these unscriptural portions, that I was tried and condemned.\n\n Brethren, I entertain no hard feelings towards you. My daily prayer\n to God is, that you may be saved, and led into all truth. I did hope\n that you would hear and consider the claims of the Lord's holy\n Sabbath, when presented in a mild and affectionate manner. But either\n I have failed to present the question with sufficient tenderness, or\n you have determined to avoid all discussion in regard to it.\n\n It grieves me to the soul to bid you farewell. Both God and man will\n bear witness, in the day of final reckoning, that you have trampled\n down, by the resistless force of an overwhelming majority, one who\n was endeavoring with both hands to hold up the standard of the great\n Covenant God of our fathers. But though for the present cast down, I\n am not dismayed. The Sabbath of the Lord God is a richer treasure\n than the richest you can either give or take away. \"Rejoice not\n against me, O mine enemy; when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in\n darkness, the Lord will be a light unto me. I will bear the\n indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, until he\n plead my cause, and execute judgment for me; he will bring me forth\n to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness.\"\n\n Brethren, I shall meet you before the judgment seat of Christ, on\n that day when he shall come \"with ten thousand of his saints.\"\n \"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they\n also which pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail\n because of him. Even so, amen.\"\n\n J. W. MORTON\n\n PHILADELPHIA, MAY 29th, 1849.\n\nREFLECTIONS.\n\nI did believe, and believe yet, that, had I been sustained by twenty\nministers and as many congregations, I should have had leave to defend\nmyself to my heart's content. But it was very evident to the Synod,\nthat I stood alone. They knew that I could do them no harm, by\nfomenting discord; and--may I not add?--they knew that I was not the\nman to be found employed in such a work. The only loss they could\nsustain, in cutting me off, with all my adherents, was that of two\nadults and as many little children. Indeed, many of the members\n_seemed_ to regret the _trouble_ far more than the _necessity_ of\nexecuting the law; and one aged father has remarked to me since, that\ntill then he never witnessed a trial, before a church court, in which\n_there was not one atom of mercy_.\n\nNow, is there not a reason for all this? Unquestionably there is. The\nloose and unpresbyterial doctrine, that a majority has a right to\ndetermine what _is_, and what _is not_ truth, and that the greater the\nmajority in favor of any dogma, the more firmly its truth is\nestablished, has leavened, sadly and extensively, even the Reformed\nPresbyterian Church. This is the reason why one who represents a lean\nminority cannot be heard, even in defense of ecclesiastical life. The\nmajority have said, that the first day is the Sabbath, and who dare\ncall in question the assertion? A man may be denounced as a\ncovenant-breaker; yet, because he belongs to a small minority, he may\nnot attempt to prove his innocence of the crime. Thus the right of the\nminority to vindicate themselves from the Scriptures, in defense of\nwhich many of the old Covenanters bled, is practically denied by their\ndescendants. \"O Lord, how long!\"\n\nBrethren, are you really so wedded to this _majority principle_? Know,\nthen, that _God is a majority_; and that those that are with _me_ are\nmore than those that are with _you_. God's testimony is worth more\nthan that of all men. What though millions _have_ affirmed, that the\nseventh day is NOT the Sabbath? _He_ hath left us this imperishable\ntestimony: \"The seventh day IS the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.\" And\nthis is the testimony of the _greatest majority_ that ever gave\nutterance to truth. But God hath not left himself without other\nwitnesses. Where are those myriads of angels who were present when\n\"the Sabbath was made for man?\" Where are those \"morning stars\" who\n\"sang together,\" and those \"sons of God\" who \"shouted for joy,\" when\nour Father \"laid the foundations of the earth?\" They are not _now_\npresent with us, 'tis true, to bear their testimony; but they _will\nbe_ present, when you and I shall appear before the judgment seat of\nChrist, to hear the decision of this controversy. And do you think\nthat you will then dare, on the authority of what is said in Acts\n20:7, to lift up your hands, and swear \"by Him that liveth forever and\never,\" that the Sabbath has been \"changed into the first day of the\nweek\"--and that, too, in presence of those who saw the foundations of\nthe ancient Sabbath, like those of the earth itself, laid and balanced\nupon God's eternal decree, and inwrought with the very stones of \"the\neverlasting hills?\" No! No!! The Sabbath was one of those _pillars_ of\nthe ancient earth, which Christ, the Mediator, seized with the hand of\nhis omnipotence, and bare up, when \"the earth and all its inhabitants\"\nwere sinking into nothing. I repeat it--and who dare gainsay it?--the\nLord of Hosts is an overwhelming _majority_!\n\nBut this is not all. There is, indeed, no _greater_ witness than\nthese; but there is _other_ witness. Look into your own hearts, ye\nchildren of God, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and you will find\nrecorded there: \"The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;\nin it thou shalt not do any work.\" \"For this is the covenant that I\nwill make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord;\nI will put _my laws_ into their mind, and write them in their hearts.\"\nHere there is not the least hint of any exception. The same moral law\nthat was written \"with the finger of God,\" on tables of stone, is now\nwritten \"by the Spirit of the living God,\" on the fleshly tables of\n_your_ hearts. Yes, brethren, turn your eyes inward, and you will\nread, \"The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou\nshalt not do any work.\" If you say, We have sought this law, but find\nit not--O brethren, you have not \"sought it carefully with tears.\" It\nis hidden among the rubbish, and you will never find it, till that be\nremoved. But I speak what I do know, when I assure you, that it _is_\nrecorded there; and in the day of the Lord Jesus, if not sooner, you\nwill find it there, to your unspeakable joy and satisfaction. O Lord,\n\"open thou our eyes, that we may behold wondrous things out of thy\nlaw.\"\n\n\nPART II.\n\nDIVINE APPOINTMENT OF THE SEVENTH DAY\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nThe following pages, containing a brief discussion of a small but\nintensely interesting portion of the Sabbath controversy, are designed\nespecially for the perusal of those Christians, styled orthodox, who\ndo not keep holy the seventh day of the week.\n\nDear brethren, this is a subject of fearful importance. If the views\nherein advocated are correct, _you_ are guilty both of breaking and of\nteaching men to break one of God's holy commandments; if they are\nincorrect, I am no less guilty. Need I say any thing more to convince\nyou that you ought to give this subject a candid and prayerful\nexamination? \"Ye are the light of the world;\" take heed, brethren,\nthat your light be not darkness! You know--you cannot but know--that\nthere is much, _very much_, said in the Bible about the Sabbath, and\nthat men are very often commanded to keep it holy. You must know,\nalso, that God has said in the fourth commandment, \"The _seventh day_\nis the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work;\"\nand that, for more than four thousand years, no other day of the week\never claimed to be holy. Moreover, you cannot but know, if you have\nread the Bible carefully, that the first day of the week, which you\ncall \"the Christian Sabbath,\" is _very seldom_ mentioned; that there\nare only six passages in which the name occurs, and that four of these\nmay be viewed as one, being the records of the same events, by\ndifferent Evangelists; and how can you have failed to notice the fact,\nthat in not one of these six passages are we, or any of our\nfellow-creatures, commanded to keep the first day holy? Yet you are\nconvinced that the first day of the week is _the very Sabbath-day_,\nwhile among all those Scripture commands, before referred to, you find\nnothing to sustain the claims of the seventh. O brethren, you \"put\ndarkness for light, and light for darkness.\" Let us bow before the\nmercy-seat of Him who is the Author of life and light, and, renewing\nour personal covenant with him, plead his precious promise: \"If ye\ncontinue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall\nknow the truth, and the truth shall make you free.\"\n\nI shall endeavor, in the following pages, to establish the truth of\nthe following proposition:--\n\n_That the seventh day of the week is the only weekly Sabbath of God's\nappointment._\n\nI intend to present and enforce _four reasons_ for believing this\nproposition:--\n\nFirst--Because the original Sabbath law requires the sanctification of\nno other day.\n\nSecond--Because Adam and all his posterity have solemnly covenanted to\nkeep holy the seventh day.\n\nThird--Because Christ and his Apostles honored this day; and did not\nintimate that it would ever cease to be the Sabbath, but the contrary.\n\nFourth--Because God has never blessed and sanctified any day of the\nweek but the seventh.\n\nAs the discussion is limited by design to a narrow range, you will\nplease to bear in mind, that the following points are assumed as\ntrue:--\n\nFirst--The Sabbath was instituted before the fall of man.\n\nSecond--Adam represented all his posterity in the covenant of works.\n\nThird--The Sabbath law is perpetual, \"binding all men in all ages.\"\n\nFourth--The seventh day was the _only_ weekly Sabbath for at least\nfour thousand years.\n\nLord, sanctify us by thy truth. May the Holy Ghost, the Comforter,\nwhom thou sendest in the name of thy Son our Lord, abide in us and\npreside in this controversy. May he teach us all things, and bring all\nthings to our remembrance. May all bitterness, and wrath, and malice,\nand evil-speaking, be far from us; and may we love one another with\npure hearts fervently--for Christ's sake. Amen.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPROPOSITION.\n\nThat the seventh day of the week is the only weekly sabbath of God's\nappointment.\n\n_First Reason._\n\nMy first reason for believing this proposition is, That the original\nSabbath law, referred to in Genesis 2:2, 3, and embodied in Exodus\n20:8-11, requires the sanctification of no other day.\n\n Genesis 2:2, 3.--\"And on the seventh day (_on day the seventh_) God\n ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day\n (_on day the seventh_) from all his work which he had made. And God\n blessed the seventh DAY (_the day the seventh_,) and sanctified it:\n because that in IT he had rested from all his work which God created\n and made.\"\n\n Exodus 20:8, 11.--\"Remember the Sabbath-DAY, (_the day of the rest,\n or Sabbath_,) to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all\n thy work; but the seventh day (_day the seventh_) is the Sabbath\n (_rest_) of the Lord thy God: _in it_ thou shalt not do any manner of\n work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy\n maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that _is_ within thy\n gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and\n all that in them _is_, and rested the seventh day (_on day the\n seventh_;) wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-DAY (_the day of\n the rest, or Sabbath_,) and hallowed IT.\"\n\nThe only object, direct or indirect, of this commandment, is \"_the\nday_.\" What are we commanded to remember? \"The day.\" What are we\nrequired to keep holy? \"The day.\" What did the Lord bless and hallow?\n\"The day.\" In what are we forbidden to work? In \"the day,\" Now let us\ninquire--\n\n1. What day? _Not_ the day of Adam's fall; nor the day Noah went into\nthe ark; nor the day of the overthrow of Sodom; nor the day of the\nExodus; nor the day of the Provocation; nor the day of the removal of\nthe ark; nor the day of Christ's birth; nor the day of his\ncrucifixion; nor the day of his resurrection; nor the day of his\nascension; nor the day of judgment. It may be, and certainly is,\nproper, that we should remember all these; but we are not told to do\nso in this commandment. Neither is it some one day of the week, but no\none in particular; for how could we remember \"_the_ day,\" that is no\nday in particular?--how could we keep holy \"_the_ day\" that has not\nbeen specified?--and how could we say that God had blessed and\nhallowed \"_the_ day,\" that was no one day more than another? What day,\nthen? God says, Remember _the Sabbath-day_, or _the day of the\nSabbath_; Keep holy _the day of the Sabbath_; The Lord blessed and\nhallowed _the day of the Sabbath_. He also says, _The seventh day_ is\nthe Sabbath of the Lord thy God; _in it_ thou shalt not do any work.\nThis day, therefore, is \"the seventh day,\" or \"the day of the Sabbath.\"\n\n2. What Sabbath? Not \"_a_ Sabbath,\" or any Sabbath that man may\ninvent, or that God may hereafter keep; for that would be \"some\nSabbath,\" but no one in particular. Not some institution yet\nundetermined, that God may require man to observe weekly; for the\ncommand is not, \"Remember the Sabbath institution,\" but, \"Remember the\n_day_ of the Sabbath;\" not, \"Keep holy the Sabbath institution,\" but,\n\"Keep holy the _day_ of the Sabbath.\" The Lord did not bless and\nhallow \"the Sabbath institution,\" but \"the _day_ of the Sabbath.\" We\nare not forbidden to do work in \"the Sabbath institution,\" but in \"the\n_seventh day_.\" In fact, the phrase \"the Sabbath,\" in this\ncommandment, means neither more nor less than \"the rest.\" It is not\n_here_ the name of any institution at all, though it is often thus\nused in other parts of the Bible. Hence, this Sabbath is \"the Sabbath\nor rest of the Lord thy God.\"\n\n3. Which day of the week is \"the day of the Sabbath?\" No other than\nthat day on which the Lord rested; for the command refers to God's\nSabbath, On which day of the week did he rest? \"And he rested on the\nseventh day.\" Genesis 2:2. Therefore, \"the day of the Sabbath\" is the\nsame day of the week on which God rested from the work of creation;\nand as he rested on the seventh day of the first week, and on no\nother, the seventh and no other day of every other week must be the\nonly \"day of the Sabbath.\"\n\nLet it be particularly observed, that God does not say, Remember the\nSabbath, or, Remember the Sabbatic institution, though this is\nnecessarily implied in the command; but, Remember \"the day of the\nSabbath\"--the day on which I have ordained that the Sabbatic\ninstitution be observed. As if he had said, There is little danger,\n_comparatively_, that you will forget the fact of my having kept\nSabbath; nor is it likely that you will altogether neglect to observe\n_some day_ of rest from your arduous toils, for you will be driven to\nthis by the ever returning demands of your exhausted bodies; but you\nare, and always will be, in especial danger of forgetting the proper\nday of the week for honoring me in my own institution. Satan, who\ntakes infinite delight in all kinds of \"will-worship,\" while he hates\nwith a perfect hatred every act of strict obedience to my law, will do\nall he can to persuade you that some other day will do just as well,\nor even better. Remember, therefore, the day of my Sabbath, and keep\nthe same day holy in every week; for--mark the reason--I have myself\nrested on the seventh day, and on that account I have blessed and\nsanctified that and no other day of the week, that you may observe it,\nand keep it holy, not because it is in itself better than any other\nday, but because I have blessed and sanctified it.\n\nBut you say that the phrase, \"the Sabbath-day,\" or \"the day of the\nSabbath,\" does not mean any particular day, but \"one day in seven,\" or\nsome one of the days of the week. You alledge that \"the day of the\nSabbath,\" like \"the Pope of Rome,\" \"the Emperor of Russia,\" or \"the\nKing of Denmark,\" is a generic term, alike applicable to all the\nmembers of the same class. The phrase, \"the Emperor of Russia,\" you\nsay, refers alike to Peter, to Alexander, and to Nicholas, though only\none of them could be Emperor at any given time; so \"the day of the\nSabbath\" refers alike to the seventh and to the first day of the week,\nthough there never was but one Sabbath at any one time. This is a very\ningenious and plausible method of evading the force of the Divine\ntestimony; but, as the reasoning by which it is sustained appears to\nbe entirely sophistical, I cannot but look upon the whole thing as a\nfabrication. I believe that any man, possessing the requisite\nqualifications, _may_ become \"Emperor of Russia,\" but deny that any\nday but one _can_ be the day of God's Sabbath, inasmuch as God had\nnever kept, at that time, but one Sabbath, and that occupied only one\nday. There is only one day of American Independence; only one day of\nthe Resurrection of Christ; only one day of the birth of any one man;\nand only one day of Judgment. And why? Because American Independence\nwas declared on but one day; Christ rose on but one day; the same man\ncannot be born on two different days; and God hath appointed only one\nday in which he will judge the world. Now, on the same principle,\nthere can be but one \"day of the Sabbath\" of the Lord our God. If I\nshould say that the day of Christ's Resurrection is not any particular\nday of the week, but only \"one day in seven,\" you would not hesitate\nto call me a fool, while my ignorance would excite your deepest\nsympathy; but when _you_ say that \"the day of the Sabbath\" does not\nmean that particular day on which the Lord's Sabbath occurred, but\nonly \"one day in seven,\" you expect me to receive your assertion as\nthe infallible teaching of superior wisdom. I cannot, however, so\nreceive it, for the following reasons:--\n\n1. If God had meant \"one day in seven,\" he would have said so. His\nfirst and great design, in writing his law on tables of stone, was to\nbe understood by his creatures; but, for more than two thousand years\nafter he gave the law, no human being ever suspected that \"the day of\nthe Sabbath\" meant anything else than the seventh day of the week,\nbecause it was commonly known that that day alone was in reality \"the\nday of the Sabbath.\" Indeed, this \"one-day-in-seven\" doctrine is known\nto have been invented within a few hundred years, with the pious\ndesign of accounting for a change of Sabbath, without the necessity of\nrepealing a portion of the moral law. It is matter of great surprise,\nthat those pious theologians, who first substituted \"one day in seven\"\nfor \"the day of the Sabbath,\" did not shudder at the thought of\npresuming to mend the language of the Holy Ghost. \"The words of the\nLord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified\nseven times.\" Ps. 12:6. Brethren, are you prepared to enter into\njudgment, and answer for the liberties you have taken with God's word?\nIn substituting the vague and indefinite expression, \"one day in\nseven,\" for the definite and unequivocal terms, \"the Sabbath-day,\" and\n\"the seventh day,\" you have as truly taken \"away from the words of the\nprophecy of this book,\" as if you had blotted the fourth commandment\nfrom the Decalogue; while your leading object has been, to make way\nfor the introduction of a new command that, for aught the Scriptures\nteach, it never entered into the heart of the Almighty to put into his\nlaw. \"A faithful witness will not lie,\" and when the world asks, Which\nday of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath? God\nexpects that you, as faithful witnesses, will not only \"not lie,\" but\nthat you will not equivocate, or give with the gospel trumpet \"an\nuncertain sound.\" He does not expect that you will quote a text from the\nActs of the Apostles, that says not one word about Sabbath-keeping, to\nprove that the fourth commandment enjoins the keeping holy of \"one day\nin seven,\" but of \"no day in particular.\"\n\n2. God never blessed \"one day in seven,\" without blessing a particular\nday. He either blessed some definite object, or nothing. You _may_\nsay, indeed, without falsehood, that God blessed \"one day in seven;\"\nbut if you mean that this act of blessing did not terminate on any\nparticular day, you ought to know, that you are asserting what is\nnaturally impossible. As well might you say of a band of robbers, that\nthey had killed \"one man in seven,\" while in reality they had killed\nno man in particular. No, brethren, yourselves know very well, that\nGod had not blessed and sanctified any day but _the seventh of the\nseven_, prior to the giving of the written law. You know, that if God\nblessed any day of the week at all, it was a definite day, distinct\nfrom all the other days of the week. But this commandment says, that\n\"the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day.\" Therefore the Sabbath-day must be\na particular day of the week. Therefore \"the Sabbath-day\" is not \"one\nday in seven,\" or an indefinite seventh part of time. Therefore it is\nnot \"one day in seven\" that we are required to remember, and keep\nholy, and in which we are forbidden to do any work; but \"the seventh\nday\" of the week, which was then, is now, and will be till the end of\ntime, \"the day of the Sabbath\" of the Lord our God.\n\n3. No day of the week but the seventh was ever called \"the day of the\nSabbath,\" either by God or man, till long since the death of the last\ninspired writer. Search both Testaments through and through, and you\nwill find no other day called \"_the_ Sabbath,\" or even \"_a_ Sabbath,\"\nexcept the ceremonial Sabbaths, with which, of course, we have nothing\nto do in this controversy. And long after the close of the canon of\ninspiration, the seventh day, and no other, was still called \"the\nSabbath.\" If you can prove that any one man, among the millions of\nAdam's children, from the beginning of the world till the _rise of\nanti-Christ_, ever called the first day of the week \"_the Sabbath_,\"\nyou will shed a light upon this controversy, for which a host of able\nwriters have searched in vain.\n\nBut, farther; the first day of the week was not observed by any of the\nchildren of men, _as a Sabbath_, for three hundred years after the\nbirth of Christ. Do you ask proof? I refer you to Theodore de Beza,\nwho plainly says so. If you are not satisfied with the witness, will\nyou have the goodness to prove the affirmative of the proposition?\n\nI infer, therefore, that \"the day of the Sabbath,\" or \"the\nSabbath-day,\" is the proper name of the seventh day of the week, as\nmuch so as \"the day of Saturn;\" and that to attach this proper name\n_now_ to some other day of the week, and to affirm that God meant that\nother day, as much as he did the seventh, when he wrote the law on\ntables of stone, is as unreasonable as it is impious. If you say, that\nwhen God speaks of \"the Sabbath-day,\" he means \"one day in seven, but\nno day in particular,\" you are as far from the truth as if you said\nthat, when he speaks of Moses, he does not mean any particular man,\nbut \"some one of the Israelites.\" Moses _was_ one of the Israelites,\njust as the Sabbath-day _is_ one day in seven. But when God says\nMoses, he means Moses the son of Amram; and when he says \"the\nSabbath-day,\" he means the seventh day of the week. You _may_ give\ndifferent names to the same object, without interfering with its\nidentity; but to apply the same name to two different objects, and\nthen to affirm that these two objects are identically the same, so\nthat what is predicated of the one must be true of the other, is as\nthough a navigator should discover an island in the Southern Ocean,\nand call it \"England,\" and then affirm that the late work of Mr.\nMacaulay, entitled \"The History of England,\" is a veritable and\nauthentic history of his newly-discovered empire. Which would you\nwonder at most, the stupidity or the effrontery of that navigator?\n\nI cannot close this chapter without reminding you that, in attempting\nto refute the above reasoning, the main thing you will have to show\nis, that \"the Sabbath-day,\" or \"the day of the Sabbath,\" is an\nindefinite or general expression, applicable alike to at least two\ndifferent days of the week, and that it is used indefinitely in this\ncommandment. If it has been proved, that \"the day of the Sabbath\"\nrefers, and can refer, _only_ to the seventh day of the week, then it\nis true, and will remain forever true, that the original Sabbath law\nrequires the sanctification of no other day. This is the truth which I\nundertook to exhibit in this chapter, and is my first reason for\nbelieving the proposition under consideration.\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_Second Reason._\n\nMy second reason for believing this proposition is, That Adam and all\nhis posterity have solemnly covenanted to keep holy the seventh day.\n\n Genesis 2:15-17--\"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the\n Garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it. And the Lord God\n commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest\n freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou\n shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou\n shalt surely die.\"\n\n Romans 5:12, 19--\"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the\n world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that\n all have sinned.\" \"For as by one man's disobedience many were made\n sinners; so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous.\"\n\n Galatians 3:10--\"For as many as are of the works of the law, are\n under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that\n continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law\n to do them.\"\n\nOn these passages it may be remarked--\n\n1. \"God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound\nhim, _and all his posterity_ to personal, exact, _entire_, and\n_perpetual_ obedience.\"\n\n2. \"This law, after his fall, continued to be _a perfect rule of\nrighteousness_; and, _as such_, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai\nin ten commandments, and written in two tables.\" Therefore, the fourth\ncommandment and the Sabbath law of the covenant of works are _one and\nthe same law_; and all believers in Christ are now bound by this law,\n_as a rule of life_, to remember and keep holy the _same Sabbath-day_\nthat Adam and all his posterity covenanted to remember and keep holy.\n\n3. You admit that Adam, _and all his posterity_, pledged themselves to\nkeep holy the seventh day of every week, _and no other_. Therefore,\n_we_ are all born under a solemn obligation, our own obligation in\nAdam, to keep holy that same seventh day of every week as long as we\nremain on earth: \"_Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve\nbut much strengthen this obligation_.\"\n\n4. It is now too late to alter the covenant of works, by substituting\nsome other day of the week for the seventh, for the following\nreasons:--\n\nFirst--Because the whole transaction was finished, in the person of\nour representative, nearly six thousand years ago. The covenant was\nmade, the obligation assumed, the deed of transgression consummated,\nthe curse pronounced, and the bitter _death_ experienced, in _kind_,\nthough not _in degree_, and all this before the first revelation of\nthe mercy of God in Christ. We are, therefore, all of us, the very\nmoment we are born, accursed of God, for not having kept holy the\nseventh day of the week, according to our covenant. And all who are\nnot redeemed therefrom by Christ, remain forever under this curse.\nFrom which it is plain, that to substitute some other day for the\nseventh, since the fall of man, is as impossible as it would be to\nsubstitute _some other tree_ for the \"tree of knowledge.\" To all who\nadmit that God made a covenant of works with all mankind _in Adam_,\nthese truths ought to be self-evident. Brethren, _we_ acknowledge that\nwe are all guilty before God of having eaten of the fruit of the tree\nof knowledge, while we disclaim _any guilt whatever_ in regard to the\nfruit of every other tree; so are we guilty of violating the rest of\nthe seventh day of the week, while we are not by nature guilty of\npolluting any other day.\n\nSecond--Because such substitution would destroy an integral part of\nthe moral law. The law written on the heart of man said nothing about\nkeeping holy any other day than the seventh; for all admit that, had\nAdam not fallen, there never would have been any other holy day. If,\nthen, this law does _not now_ require the sanctification of the\nseventh day, _the fourth commandment must have been annihilated_; and\nif another day is _now_ the Sabbath, a new commandment, requiring _for\na new reason_ the sanctification of a different day, must have been\nsubstituted in its place. But this new law can be _no part of the\nmoral law_, because it was _not written on man's heart_, nor did any\nhuman being know of its existence till thousands of God's people had\nbeen taken home to glory. God gave to Adam _free permission_ to labor\nand do work on every day but the seventh, and he, as a free moral\nagent, accepted the proffered boon. Therefore, to labor on any one of\nthe first six days of the week is, under the covenant of works, _as\ninnocent in itself_ as to pray to the Creator of the Universe. It is\nas much a natural and inalienable right, as \"life, liberty, and the\npursuit of happiness.\" Now, if there is a law that requires the\nkeeping holy of some other day, it must have its origin in the\nnew-covenant grace of God; and if that other day, and not the seventh,\nis _now_ the Sabbath, men are _now_ no more under a _natural_\nobligation to keep a Sabbath than to be baptized, or to celebrate the\nLord's Supper. The obligation to keep it _must_, on your principle,\ngrow out of their new-covenant relation to God in Christ.\n\nLet us now look for a moment at the consequences flowing from the\ndoctrine, that some other day--the first, for example--has been\nsubstituted for the seventh. \"Try the spirits.\" \"By their fruits ye\nshall know them.\"\n\n1. If this doctrine be true, the doctrine _that Adam represented all\nhis posterity, must be false_; for, if Adam covenanted, as you admit\nhe did, to keep holy the seventh day of every week, and _we_ are not\nbound to do so, he certainly did not represent us, neither in that nor\nin any other part of the covenant; for, if we did not promise in Adam\nto keep holy the Sabbath-day, we did not promise to keep any thing\nelse.\n\n2. If this doctrine be true, _there is now no such thing as original\nsin_. This follows as a matter of course; for, if Adam did not\nrepresent us, we are not _born sinners_. The fact might be proved in\nanother way, but this is enough.\n\n3. If this doctrine be true, and the law of the new Sabbath bind \"all\nmen,\" as you say it does, it must bind _the heathen_, who are a part\nof \"all men.\" But if there is a new Sabbath instituted, it can only be\nmade known through the written word of God, of which the heathen _can\nknow nothing_. This new Sabbath has never been made known to them, nor\nto any of their ancestors. Nevertheless, you say that they are bound\nto observe it, _according to the written word_, and that they shall be\npunished to all eternity for breaking it; which is contrary to the\nteaching of the Apostle, (Rom. 2:12,) that the heathen shall be judged\nand condemned, not by the written word, but by _the law of nature_,\nwhich you know can reveal no Sabbath but that of the seventh day; for\nAdam, who understood the law of nature better than any other mere man,\nnever thought of keeping holy any other day. And, moreover, the\nheathen have, on your principle, only nine commandments to obey or\ndisobey; for they are under the law of nature, which says, \"Keep holy\nthe seventh day:\" but you say that God does not _now_ require this:\ntherefore they are released from the obligation. And, what is stranger\nstill, the heathen have no means of knowing that to keep the seventh\nday _is a work of supererogation_. These are _a few_ of the\nconsequences of your doctrine of a change of Sabbath. What must be the\ncharacter of that tree which yields such fruits!\n\nLet us now attend for a moment to your objections.\n\nDo you say, Those who believe in Christ are redeemed, not only from\nthe curse of the Sabbath law, but also from the obligation to obey it\nin future? If so, who can tell but we are redeemed from _every other_\nmoral obligation?\n\nOr, do you alledge, that Christ makes a new contract with the sinner,\nsaying, If you keep holy the first day, I will release you from the\nobligation to sanctify the seventh? \"Do we then make void the law\nthrough faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law,\" Rom. 3:31. But\nperhaps you say, To change the Sabbath from one day to another is not\nto make void the law; it is only to vary its application. I reply, It\n_is_ to make void, to _annul_, to _annihilate_, one tenth part of that\nlaw that God wrote on Adam's heart; for, as has been shown already,\nthat law required him to keep no day holy but the seventh.\n\nOr, do you plead that, as God _has_ substituted the Lord Jesus Christ\nfor the sinner, without violating the moral law, so he _may_ have\nsubstituted some other day for the seventh? I reply, The cases are not\nparallel; for--\n\n1. The substitution of Christ does not render a change of any part of\nthe law necessary; but the other does. Christ \"came not to destroy\"\nthe law, but to fulfill it; and in fulfilling it, he honored the\nseventh day: but the substitution of some other day for the seventh,\nhad it taken place before Christ came, would have released him, as\nwell as us, from the obligation to obey a part of the law of the\ncovenant of works.\n\n2. A change of Sabbath is not, like the substitution of Christ,\n_necessary_ to the salvation of sinners; for God had saved thousands\nbefore this change is alledged to have taken place.\n\n3. The substitution of Christ changes the moral condition _of the\nchurch only_; but the change of Sabbath would affect the moral\nrelations of all men; for the Sabbath was made, not for the church,\nbut \"for man.\"\n\n4. The evangelical doctrine of the substitutionary sacrifice of\nChrist, of itself, proves the impossibility of a change of Sabbath.\nAll evangelical Christians hold, that believers are delivered, through\nChrist, from the _curse_ of the law--the law of the covenant of\nworks--_but not from the obligation to obey it_. If, therefore, that\nlaw required _Adam and his posterity_ to keep holy the seventh day of\nthe week, Christ has never redeemed them from the obligation to render\n\"_exact obedience_,\" in this particular, as in every other.\n\nDo you plead, as a last resort, that, as the command not to eat of the\nfruit of the tree of knowledge has passed away, so it may be with the\nlaw of the seventh-day Sabbath? I reply, The cases are not parallel;\nfor that command never was a part of the moral law. It was never\nwritten, either on man's heart, or on tables of stone; but this was.\nBesides, the tree of knowledge has been destroyed from the face of the\nearth, so that to eat of its fruit is now impossible; but the seventh\nday will continue to return \"while the earth remaineth.\"\n\nBrethren, you bewilder yourselves and others, by adopting, as a moral\naxiom, the false principle, that whatever is in its nature positive,\nis _for that reason_, changeable. There is no principle more deadly\nthan this. Do you not know, that all our hopes, as Christians, for\ntime and for eternity, are suspended on the _immutability_ of that\n_positive arrangement_ between the Father and the Son, which we call\nthe covenant of grace? Are not the decrees of God all _positive_, yet,\nat the same time, immutable? So, also, the _Sabbath law_, though in\nits nature positive, has been made unchangeable, by a solemn covenant\narrangement, \"in which it was impossible for God to lie.\" If God had\nnot made the law, requiring the sanctification of the seventh day, an\nessential part of the covenant of works, your doctrine of a change of\nSabbath would not be so preposterous. As it is, how can serious,\nthinking men, help viewing it as a monstrous and impious absurdity!\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_Third Reason._\n\nMy third reason for believing this proposition is, That Christ and his\nApostles honored this day; and did not intimate that it would ever\ncease to be the Sabbath, but the contrary.\n\n1. Christ honored this day.\n\n Luke 4:16--\"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up:\n and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the\n Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read.\"\n\n Luke 4:30, 31; (See also Mark 1:21)--\"But he, passing through the\n midst of them, went his way, and came down to Capernaum, a city of\n Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath-days.\"\n\n Luke 13:10--\"And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the\n Sabbath.\"\n\n Mark 3:1, 2--\"And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was\n a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him whether\n he would heal him on the Sabbath-day.\"\n\n Mark 6:2--\"And when the Sabbath-day was come, he began to teach in\n the synagogue.\"\n\n2. The Apostles honored this day. Read carefully the following\npassages and their contexts.\n\n Acts 13:14--\"But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch\n in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and sat\n down.\"\n\n Acts 13:44--\"And the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city\n together to hear the word of God.\" (That is, to hear Paul and\n Barnabas preach.)\n\n Acts 14:1--\"And it came to pass in Iconium, that they (Paul and\n Barnabas) went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so\n spake, that a great multitude, both of the Jews, and also of the\n Greeks, believed.\"\n\n Acts 16:23--\"And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river\n side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake\n unto the women which resorted thither.\"\n\n Acts 17:2--\"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three\n Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.\"\n\n Acts 18:4--\"And he (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath,\n and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.\"\n\nBrethren, if you produce one solitary apostolic example of unnecessary\nlabor performed on the seventh day, I will at once give up the\nargument in its favor.\n\n3. Neither Christ nor his Apostles intimated that the seventh day\nwould cease to be the Sabbath.\n\nThis being a negative assertion, I am not bound to prove it, of\ncourse. If you assert that they did, I demand the proof of it.\n\n4. Christ has very plainly intimated the contrary.\n\n Matthew 24:20--\"But pray ye that your flight be not in winter,\n neither on the Sabbath-day.\"\n\nThe \"flight\" here spoken of was to take place about the time of the\ndestruction of Jerusalem; and the Saviour admonishes his disciples to\npray that it might not happen on the Sabbath-day. Now, if he knew that\nthe Sabbath-day would be changed into the \"Lord's day,\" forty years\nbefore the event he had just alluded to, why did he speak of it as a\nthing that would be then in existence? Many are the efforts that have\nbeen made to evade the force of the argument from this text; but they\nare all unavailing.\n\n Matthew 5:17, 19--\"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or\n the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I\n say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall\n in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever\n therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall\n teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but\n whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in\n the kingdom of heaven.\"\n\nIt is almost universally admitted, that the Saviour, in these verses,\nrefers principally to the ten commandments, which were then, as now,\ncalled, by way of pre\u00ebminence, \"_the_ law.\" That he may have referred\nalso to the ceremonial code, which he came to fulfill, we do not deny.\nBut this has nothing to do with our present purpose.\n\nThat the fourth commandment enjoins the sanctification of the seventh\nday of the week, no man in his senses denies. But you alledge that\nthat part of it has been taken away, so that it does not now bind us.\n\nNow, in making this assertion, you either affirm what is positively\ndenied in the above quotation, or you make this commandment at least\n_partly_ ceremonial, and _peculiar to the Jews_. This will appear\nevident from the following considerations:--\n\nFirst--The command to keep holy the seventh day of the week, is far\nmore than \"one jot or one tittle\" of this law. It could be no less,\nbut it is much more. Indeed, it is very certain, that Adam considered\nit a very important part of the law; and so did Christ, when he\nuttered those words, for he kept the Sabbath as devoutly as Adam ever\ndid.\n\nSecond--Heaven and earth have not yet passed away; but you say that\nthis seventh-day law has; therefore, much more than \"one jot or one\ntittle\" has passed from the law--which is contrary to Christ's\nassertion.\n\nThird--If you say that Christ has fulfilled this law, and so taken it\naway, you make it a ceremony, like the Passover. You know that Christ\nnever fulfilled, _so as to take away_, any law but those that he\n\"nailed to his cross,\" and that he never nailed to his cross any law\nthat bindeth \"all men in all ages.\" If, then, the law requiring the\nsanctification of the seventh day of the week has been nailed to the\ncross of Christ, it must have been a ceremony peculiar to the Jews,\nand to which the Gentiles were never bound. Was Adam a Jew? Was Enoch\na Jew? Were Noah and his sons Jews? But these all kept the seventh\nday, _and no other_.[15]\n\nBrethren, it has been proved, in the first chapter of this treatise,\nthat the fourth commandment requires simply the observance of the\nseventh day of the week. I will not repeat what is there said. I now\nask you, as candid inquirers after truth, to place this commandment\nand our Saviour's declarations, quoted above, side by side, and see if\n_your_ conduct is not at war with both. You neglect the only day that\nGod's law requires you to remember, while Christ assures you, in the\nmost solemn manner, that \"one jot or one tittle\" shall in no wise pass\nfrom the law, \"till heaven and earth pass,\" or till time shall be no\nmore.\n\nThere is a little commandment in that law that says, \"The seventh day\nis the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.\"\nChrist says, that whosoever doeth and teacheth this commandment \"shall\nbe called great in the kingdom of heaven.\" But this hath been my only\ncrime. God knows, and you know, that the only thing I have done to\noffend you is, that I endeavor to refrain from doing work on the\nseventh day, and to \"teach men so.\" Yet for this I am declared to be\nthe \"least in the kingdom of heaven,\" and no longer worthy of a seat\nat the table of Him who said, that \"one jot or one tittle\" should _in\nno wise_ pass from the law.\n\nBlessed be God! it is a light thing to be judged of man's judgment.\nBut I confess that sometimes my blood runs cold, when I think of this\nsolemn declaration of the same \"Lord of the Sabbath,\" (John 12:48,)\n\"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that\njudgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in\nthe last day.\" \"Never man spake like this man.\" O, brethren, are you\nready for that awful judgment day? Nothing but God's _word_ will avail\nyou there. If you are determined to go on, appropriating the seventh\nday to secular purposes, and \"teaching men so,\" I cannot help it; but\nI call heaven and earth to witness, that, in regard to every reader of\nthese pages, my skirts are henceforth clear. On your own souls will\nrest the responsibility of rejecting these solemn words of Christ. And\nyou who are ministers--how will you answer for the wanderings of those\nlambs of Christ's fold, whom you are leading into strange pastures?\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_Fourth Reason._\n\nMy fourth reason for believing this proposition is, That God has never\nblessed and sanctified any day of the week but the seventh.\n\nIn sustaining this reason, as I occupy negative ground, I shall simply\ndefend it against your usual scripture arguments in defense of your\nfavorite doctrine, that God blessed and sanctified the first day of\nthe week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ.\n\nIn arguing this doctrine, you do not pretend to offer _positive_, but\nonly _inferential_ proof. You quote certain texts, and say, Hence we\ninfer that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. Now, as there are\nmany possible, and even plausible, inferences, that are not\nnecessarily true, I intend to be governed, in the examination of your\nscripture proofs, by the following rule of interpretation:--\n\n\"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own\nglory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down\nin scripture, or _by good and necessary consequence_ may be deduced\nfrom scripture.\"\n\nBrethren, I intend, with God's help, to show that, according to the\nabove rule, which you admit to be correct, all your inferences in\nfavor of a first-day Sabbath are _unnecessary_, and some of them\nwholly inadmissible.\n\nYOUR FIRST PROOF.\n\n Hebrews 4:9, 10--\"There remaineth, therefore, a rest (sabbatism) to\n the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath\n ceased from his own works, as God did from his.\"\n\nYour premises consist of four assertions:--First, That the rest, or\nsabbatism, that remaineth, is something different from the ancient\nSabbath. Second, That the person who \"hath ceased from his own works,\nas God did from his,\" is the Lord Jesus Christ. These two assertions I\nmost cheerfully admit. Third, That Christ entered into his rest on the\nday of his resurrection. Fourth, That the sabbatism of God's people is\nenjoyed in this life. These last two assertions I utterly deny.\n\nYour inference is, That the first day of every week, that being the\nday of the week on which Christ rose, is the sabbatism of God's\npeople. Of course, if I prove that the last two assertions are false,\nyour inference will be shown to be inadmissible.\n\nI assert, then,--\n\n1. That Christ did _not_ \"enter into his rest\" on the day of his\nresurrection; for the following reasons:--First, Because the\nScriptures do not say so. Second, Because this earth is not the place\nof his rest. He was, to the last day he spent here, \"a pilgrim and a\nstranger in the earth,\" and had not therein \"where to lay his head.\"\nBut his resurrection took place on earth, and he continued on earth\nfor \"forty days\" afterwards. Third, Because the scriptures plainly\nteach, that the Mediator _did_ \"enter into his rest,\" when he \"sat\ndown on the right hand of the Majesty on high.\" Heb. 1:3. \"Arise, O\nLord, into thy rest; thou and the ark of thy strength.\" Ps. 132:2.\nThis was the prayer of David and the congregation of Israel, when they\nremoved the ark from the house of Obed-Edom to the place \"that David\nhad pitched for it.\" When Solomon and the Elders of Israel brought up\nthe ark from the city of David, and placed it in the holy of holies,\nin the temple \"made with hands,\" they prayed in like manner, \"Now\ntherefore arise, O Lord God, into thy resting-place, thou, and the ark\nof thy strength.\" 2\u00a0Chron. 6:41. Now the ark was a type of Christ,\nwhile \"heaven itself\" is the true \"holy of holies,\" \"whither the\nforerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever\nafter the order of Melchizedek.\" Heb. 6:20. If, then, the ark entered\ninto its rest, when it was placed in the holy of holies, Jesus Christ,\nthe anti-typical ark, entered into _his_ rest when he sat down on the\nright hand of God, in the anti-typical holy of holies. Fourth, Because\nthe Apostle's great design, in this epistle, was to convince the\nchurch, and especially the Hebrews, that Christ, having \"by himself\npurged our sins,\" as they all admitted he had done, \"sat down on the\nright hand of the Majesty on high,\" (ch. 1:3,) as our ever-living\nIntercessor. Yes, the \"one idea,\" that runs through the whole Epistle,\nis to illustrate and magnify the doctrine of the glorious intercession\nof Christ the Mediator, who, \"after he had offered one sacrifice for\nsins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.\" Do you ask proof?\nTake, then, the apostle's own assertion, (ch. 8:1,) \"Now, of the\nthings which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such a high\npriest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in\nthe heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle,\nwhich the Lord pitched, and not man.\" All that is said in the third\nand fourth chapters, about the rest of Christ and the sabbatism of the\npeople of God, is included in this summary; so that it is to Christ's\neternal rest in the heavens that the verses under consideration refer.\nIndeed, we have evidence of this fact, satisfactory enough, in the\nimmediate context, (ch. 3:4,) \"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of\nthe heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our\nprofession, Christ Jesus\"--compared with ch. 4:14--\"Seeing, then, that\nwe have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus\nthe Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.\" Fifth, Because there\nis not, in this epistle, one solitary reference to the resurrection of\nChrist, except in the concluding benediction; but it abounds in\nreferences to his ascension and intercession.\n\n2. If I have reasoned correctly above, your assertion, that the\nsabbatism of God's people is enjoyed in this life, scarcely needs\nrefutation. As Christ entered into his rest, when he received the\ncrown of glory from the Father; so believers shall enter into his\nrest, when they \"shall be glorified with him.\" Moreover, as Christ did\nnot enter into his rest on the first day of the week, your inference,\nthat that day is the Sabbath, is not only _unnecessary_, but wholly\ninadmissible.\n\nBear in mind also, brethren, that, if Christ did not enter into his\nrest on the first day of the week, then your great philosophical\nargument for the first-day Sabbath, founded upon the fact, that the\nwork of redemption is greater than that of creation, vanishes at once\ninto smoke, or, at least, becomes useless for your purpose.\n\nYOUR SECOND PROOF.\n\n Psalm 118:22, 24--\"The stone which the builders refused is become the\n head-stone of the corner.\" \"This is the day which the Lord hath made,\n we will rejoice and be glad in it.\"\n\n Acts 4:10, 11--\"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of\n Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye\n crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man\n stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at\n nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.\"\n\nYou premise, that \"the day which the Lord hath made\" is the day of the\nresurrection of Christ. Whence you infer, that the first day of the\nweek is the Sabbath.\n\n1. If what you premise were true, the inference does not follow. The\nprophet does not say, We will rejoice and be glad in the same day of\nevery week; but, We will rejoice and be glad _in it_, that is, in that\nday, whatever it may be. Now Christ did not rise on the first day of\nevery week, but on one single day; and we may very well rejoice and be\nglad in that one day, without keeping any Sabbath in connection with\nit. Abraham rejoiced and was glad in the day of Christ; but he kept no\nSabbath in honor of it. So, doubtless, _you_ rejoice and are glad in\nthe day of his crucifixion, though you do not celebrate it on any\nparticular day of the week. But--\n\n2. You are evidently mistaken in referring this language of the\nPsalmist to the resurrection of Christ--for the following reasons:--\n\nFirst--Because \"the day which the Lord hath made\" is the same in which\nChrist went in by the gates of righteousness. Verses 19 and 20. \"Open\nto me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will\npraise the Lord. This gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall\nenter.\" Now, though Christ _did_ come up from \"the gates of death\" on\nthe day of his resurrection, he _did not_ formally \"enter\" by \"the\ngates of righteousness,\" till that day when he ascended from Mount\nOlivet, which was not the first day of the week. His almighty power\nand eternal Sonship were declared most gloriously on the day of his\nresurrection; but it was on the day of his ascension that his\nmediatorial righteousness was formally approved by the Father; while\nit was visibly manifested, in the presence of the universe, that the\ndoor of heaven had been opened to all true believers. Then shouted the\nseraphim, and all the host of heaven, while the door-posts of the New\nJerusalem trembled at the voice, \"Arise, O Jehovah, into thy rest,\nthou, and the ark of thy strength. Let thy priests be clothed with\nrighteousness; and let thy saints shout for joy!\" Therefore, this is\nnot the day of Christ's resurrection, but that of his ascension.\n\nSecond--Because \"the day which the Lord hath made\" is the same in\nwhich \"the stone which the builders refused\" became \"the head-stone of\nthe corner,\" (verse 22.) Christ did not become \"the head of the\ncorner,\" till he \"sat down on the right hand of God.\" You assert that\nhe did, and refer to Acts 4:10, 11, quoted above, as proof. From what\nthe apostle there sets forth, you draw the inference, that, as he was\nset at nought by the builders, when he was crucified, so he became the\nhead of the corner, when God raised him from the dead. The apostle\ndoes not say, however, that this took place on the same day that he\nrose from the dead; and all that we must _necessarily_ infer from what\nhe _does say_, is, that he became the head of the corner since his\nresurrection, which is cheerfully admitted. But whether it was on the\nsame day, or two, or ten, or forty days after, the apostle saith not.\nStill your inference would be entirely natural and proper, if it were\nnot contrary to the analogy of faith, and to the teachings of the same\nspirit in other parts of the Scriptures.\n\nI suppose it will be admitted, that when Christ became the head of the\ncorner, he became \"the head over all things to the church,\" and that\nthen \"all things were put under his feet.\" Now the apostle clearly\nteaches, that these things took place when he sat down on the right\nhand of God, as appears from the following texts:--\n\n Ephesians 1:20-22--\"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him\n from the dead, (or, having raised him from the dead,) and set him at\n his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all\n principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that\n is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:\n and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over\n all things to the church.\"\n\n Hebrews 2:8, 9--\"But now we see not yet all things put under him\n (man;) but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels,\n for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.\" Observe,\n that the Apostle's great object in this epistle is, to show that\n Christ is _in heaven_, forever interceding for the church.\n\nNow, is it not manifest from these texts, that Christ became the head\nof the corner when he ascended to his Father and our Father, to his\nGod and our God? Nor is there any thing in Acts 4:10, 11, that\ncontradicts this idea.\n\nBrethren, the glorious building of grace has its foundation, not on\nearth, where we are pilgrims and strangers, but in heaven, where\nJesus, the corner-stone, \"elect and precious,\" sitteth at the right\nhand of God, and is constantly occupied in gathering from afar the\n\"lively stones\" of the glorious edifice. Blessed forever be his holy\nname!\n\nYOUR THIRD PROOF.\n\n John 20:19, 26--\"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of\n the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled\n for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith\n unto them, Peace be unto you.\" \"And after eight days again his\n disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus; the\n doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto\n you.\"--See also Luke 24:26.\n\nYou premise, that the disciples, on the two days referred to above,\none of which certainly was, and the other may have been, the first day\nof the week, had met together for public or social worship, when\nChrist appeared to them. Whence you infer, that the first day of the\nweek is the Sabbath.\n\nNow, what you premise _seems_ to be a mere assumption, for which there\nis not a shadow of proof, either in the text or context. No one of the\nEvangelists says that they met for worship; nor did they worship, so\nfar as we know, when met together. In regard to the first of those\noccasions, we are told, that they \"were assembled for fear of the\nJews;\" and, as to the second, we are simply informed, that they \"were\nwithin,\" which means, probably, that they were _at home_; for Luke\ntells us, that, on the day of the ascension, the eleven \"abode\" in an\nupper room. Acts 1:13.\n\nAgain, your inference is not _necessary_; for the matter may be\nexplained thus: On the day of the resurrection, the eleven, having\nprocured a common lodging-room, \"assembled for fear of the Jews;\" and\nChrist appeared to them before the close of the same day, in order\nthat they, who were to be witnesses of his resurrection, might have\nocular demonstration of the fact, that he rose \"according to the\nscriptures.\" On the other occasion, \"after eight days,\" he met them,\nprobably, \"as they sat at meat,\" (Mark 16:14,) because Thomas, who had\nnot seen him since his resurrection, was then with them.\n\nThese reasons are surely sufficient to account for his appearing on\nthose occasions. But why demand reasons at all? Had he not a right to\nmeet his disciples on any day of the week that he chose, without\ntelling us why? Can you tell us why he appeared to the brethren when\nthey were fishing? Christ has done many things for which the only\nreason we can give is, that it seemed good to him.\n\nYOUR FOURTH PROOF.\n\n Acts 2:1--\"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were\n all with one accord in one place.\"\n\nYour premises are--1. That the Feast of Pentecost fell that year on\nthe first day of the week. 2. That the disciples were, _for that\nreason_, with one accord in one place. Whence you infer, that the\nfirst day of the week is the Sabbath. I reply--\n\nWhether the Feast of Pentecost fell that year on the first day of the\nweek, or not, the disciples did not meet to keep the Sabbath, but to\ncelebrate Pentecost. They would have been, in like manner \"with one\naccord in one place,\" if it had been the fourth day of the week,\nbecause it was the day of Pentecost. Therefore, your inference is not\nonly _unnecessary_, but wholly inadmissible.\n\nYOUR FIFTH PROOF.\n\n Acts 20:7--\"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples\n came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to\n depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.\"\n\nYou premise, that the disciples came together, in this instance, to\ncelebrate the Lord's Supper, and to hear the word. Whence you infer,\nthat the first day of the week is the Sabbath.\n\nWhat you premise is very uncertain; for--\n\n1. There is no evidence that they met to hear the word. The object of\nthe meeting was \"to break bread;\" and the preaching of Paul seems to\nhave been _incidental_, and not by appointment.\n\n2. It is not certain that \"to break bread\" means to partake of the\nLord's Supper. The Greek word, translated, _to break_, is used very\noften in the New Testament in reference to ordinary meals. An instance\noccurs in Luke 24:35--\"And they told what things were done in the way,\nand how he was known of them _in breaking of bread_.\"\n\nBut if what you assert were true, your inference is not _necessary_;\nfor--\n\n1. It is entirely proper, for aught we know to the contrary, to\ncelebrate the Lord's Supper and hear preaching on any day of the week.\n\n2. Perhaps this meeting was held at that particular time, because the\nApostle and his company were \"ready to depart on the morrow.\" It was\nprobably a farewell meeting, as many learned men think, and the text\nitself _seems_ to hint.\n\n3. There is not one word said in the text about Sabbath-keeping; nor\nis there the least intimation, either in the text or context, that the\ndisciples were _accustomed_ to meet on the first day of the week for\nany purpose whatever.\n\nBut you say, Paul waited there seven days, and we have no account of\nhis preaching till the last night of his stay, which was the first of\nthe week. We reply, This is no evidence that he did not preach during\nthe other six days. Luke tells us, in this same chapter, verses 2 and\n3, that \"he came into Greece, and there abode three months;\" and he\ndoes not say that he preached once during that time. But a small part,\nindeed, of the doings of the Apostles is recorded.\n\nIt is a remarkable fact, that this text, which is the only one in the\nNew Testament that speaks of public religious exercises on the first\nday of the week, is, at the same time, the only one in the Bible that\ndirectly proves, that this day is _not_ the Sabbath. I have already\nproposed to give up the argument in favor of the seventh day, if you\nproduce one apostolic example of unnecessary labor performed therein.\nWill you give up your argument for the first day on the same\ncondition? I believe this verse furnishes such an example.\n\nThe text proves nothing for you, if Paul's sermon and the breaking of\nbread were not on the first day. The sermon was preached between\nevening and midnight, and the bread was broken between midnight and\nbreak of day, and then Paul set out on his journey. According to the\nRoman method of computing time, the breaking of bread, at least, was\nin the morning of the same day in which Paul traveled from Troas to\nAssos, and thence to Mitylene; and, according to the Jewish method,\nthe sermon, the breaking of bread, and the journey from Troas to\nMitylene, were all within the compass of the same \"first day of the\nweek.\" That Luke should follow the unnatural Roman method, is so\nunlikely as hardly to be supposable. Now, if Paul traveled\nunnecessarily from Troas to Mitylene, as it seems he did, on the first\nday of the week, surely that day was not then the Sabbath of the\nfourth commandment. This text, therefore, _proves positively that the\nfirst day is not the Sabbath_, on which account it is of no little\nvalue in this controversy.\n\nYOUR SIXTH PROOF.\n\n 1\u00a0Corinthians 16:2--\"Upon the first day of the week, let every one of\n you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no\n gatherings when I come.\"\n\nYour premises are--1. That the Apostle here commands the Corinthians\nto make public collections on the first day of the week. 2. That,\ntherefore, public assemblies were accustomed to be held on that day.\nWhence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.\n\nI deny both your premises. The apostle simply orders, that each one of\nthe Corinthian brethren should lay up _at home_ some portion of his\nweekly gains on the first day of the week. The whole question turns\nupon the meaning of the expression, \"by him;\" and I marvel greatly how\nyou can imagine that it means \"in the collection box of the\ncongregation.\" Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term,\n\"_by one's self, i. e. at home_.\" Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and\nthat of Castellio, render it, \"_apud se_,\" with one's self, at home.\nThree French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy,\n\"_chez soi_,\" at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, \"_bei\nsich selbst_,\" by himself, at home. The Dutch, \"_by hemselven_,\" same\nas the German. The Italian of Diodati \"_appresso di se_,\" in his own\npresence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, \"_en su casa_,\" in his\nown house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, \"_para isso_,\" with himself.\nThe Swedish, \"_n\u00e6r sig sielf_,\" near himself. I know not how much this\nlist of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one\ntranslation that differs from those quoted above. Now, if your\npremises are false, your inference is not only _unnecessary_, but\nwholly inadmissible.\n\nYOUR SEVENTH PROOF.\n\n Revelations 1:10--\"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day.\"\n\nYou premise, that the \"Lord's day\" is the first day of the week.\nWhence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.\n\nYou here assume the principal point in dispute, namely, that God has\nappointed the first day of every week to be kept in commemoration of\nthe resurrection of Christ. Is every Friday the \"Lord's day,\" because\nhe was crucified on Friday? You answer, No. Is every Thursday the\n\"Lord's day,\" because he ascended on Thursday? You answer, No. So,\nwhen you ask, Is every first day of the week the \"Lord's day,\" because\nhe rose on the first day? I answer, No. And is it too much that I\nshould ask you to prove your assumption? I have never yet met with an\nattempt to prove it.\n\nBut, were this even proved, your inference would not be _necessary_.\nThe first day _might_ be the \"Lord's day,\" and yet not the Sabbath.\nWould the bare mention of this day by the Apostle John, even if it\nwere certain that he referred to the first day of the week, repeal or\nalter the fourth commandment? Certainly not. But you ask, What day did\nhe mean? I reply, Most probably he meant the seventh, since we know\nfrom several scriptures that this _is in fact the Lord's day_. See\nNehemiah 9:14, and Isaiah 58:13. But you ask again, Why did he not say\n\"the Sabbath,\" if he meant it? I reply by asking you, Why did he not\nsay \"the first day,\" if he meant it?\n\nBrethren, who can say, that, from any or all of the texts commented\nupon above, the inference is _necessary_, that the first day of the\nweek _is_, and that the seventh _is not_, _holy_? But this is\nprecisely what _you_ infer from them. On the sole authority of these\npassages, together with that one in which Christ says, that he is\n\"Lord of the Sabbath,\" you have no hesitation in affirming that the\nfirst day of the week is the very Sabbath day spoken of in the fourth\ncommandment, and that the seventh day of the week is not _now_ more\nholy than any other; or, in other words, that the blessing which God\nput upon it in the beginning, (Gen. 2:21,) has been taken from it, and\ngiven to another day. What! because \"there remaineth a sabbatism to\nthe people of God,\" therefore the seventh day _must_ have ceased to be\nthe Sabbath! Because \"we will be glad and rejoice\" in \"the day which\nthe Lord hath made,\" therefore the seventh day _must_ have ceased to\nbe holy! Because Christ showed himself to his disciples once or twice\non the first day of the week, therefore the seventh day _cannot_ be\nthe Sabbath! Because the Pentecostal effusion of the Holy Ghost\nhappened on the first day of the week, as is clearly demonstrated by\narithmetical calculation, therefore the seventh day _cannot_ claim to\nbe the Sabbath! Because the disciples met _once_ \"to break bread\" on\nthe first day of the week, therefore God _must_ have unsanctified the\nseventh day! Because the Corinthian and Galatian Christians were\ncommanded to \"lay by them in store\" on the first day of the week, for\nthe relief of the poor saints, therefore the seventh day _can be\nnothing more_ than a working day! Because John was \"in the spirit on\nthe Lord's day,\" therefore the seventh day _cannot_ be \"the Lord's\nday,\" as it used to be! Because Jesus Christ is \"Lord of the Sabbath,\"\nand has the right to change it, or even to annihilate it, (?)\ntherefore the seventh day _must_ have ceased to be a day of rest! O\nbrethren, you dare not say, that any of these inferences flow from the\nScriptures as _necessary consequences_. But if they are not\n_necessary_--if there is any way of avoiding them, without doing\nviolence either to the text or context--how _can_ you ask me to\nbelieve that the first day _is_, and that the seventh _is not_, holy?\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\"The Sabbath was made for man.\" I am a man; therefore, the Sabbath was\nmade for me. God has blessed and sanctified _the seventh day_ of the\nweek, and commanded me to keep it holy _for that reason_; therefore,\nas long as the seventh day continues to be divinely blessed and\nsanctified, I am bound to keep it holy. But it is nowhere said in the\nBible that God has removed the blessing from this day, or that he has\nunsanctified it. _You_ say so, indeed; but you are neither the authors\nnor the finishers of my faith; nor will your unsupported assertion, a\nthousand times repeated, amount to a divine revelation. If you assert\nthat it is the will of God that I should cease to regard the seventh\nday as holy, I ask, Where is this revealed? What Prophet or Apostle\nhas said so, _directly or indirectly_? It is not enough for you to\nanswer, that the first day has been blessed and sanctified, as a\nmemorial of the work of redemption. That assertion, if it were true,\nwould not prove that the seventh day _is not holy_. No, brethren, your\nown conscience must tell you, that there is not one syllable in the\nBible on which to ground the doctrine that God has _unsanctified_ the\nseventh day of the week.\n\nBut one of your ministers has told me, that God did not bless and\nsanctify any particular day of the week, but only the Sabbath\nInstitution. To this I have only to say, \"Let God be true, and every\nman a liar.\" The Holy Ghost says, (Gen. 2:2,) \"And God blessed the\n_seventh day_, and sanctified it;\" and again, (Exod. 20:11,)\n\"Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath DAY, and hallowed it.\" Now, if\nyou assert, with these scriptures staring you in the face, that God\nnever blessed and sanctified any particular day, but only the Sabbath\nInstitution, do you not make God a liar, in order to excuse your own\nrebellion? O brethren, I perceive that these texts are an eye-sore to\nyou, and that in your hearts you wish they were out of the Bible. If\nyou loved them you would not flatly contradict them. I appeal to your\nown consciousness, is it not your great effort, when you take up the\nfourth commandment, to convince yourselves and others, that God's\nSpirit _does not mean_ what he says, in as plain language as any\nSabbatarian could employ; that is, that 'the seventh day is the\nSabbath of the Lord thy God.' And, when you take up these passages in\nthe New Testament, which have been considered above, do you not labor\nto convince yourselves, that the same Spirit _does mean_ what he _does\nnot say_; that is, that the first day is the Sabbath?\n\nYou do not believe that what God says a dozen times, or more, _can_ be\ntrue; but you are sure, that what he _does not say even once_ is\ninfallibly true; and that nothing but stupidity or scepticism would\npresume to doubt it. When you are told that the seventh day is the\nSabbath, and the testimony of God's Spirit, plainly uttered in one\ndozen passages, together with the uniform practice of the church as\nlong as we can trace the inspired history of the Sabbath, is offered\nin proof of the assertion, you shut your eyes, and declare that you\ncan see nothing, and that all this proves nothing. But when you tell\nme, that the first day _is_, and that the seventh _is not_, the\nSabbath, and quote, as proof, Acts 20:7, and a few other passages, not\none of which says one word about the Sabbath, or the seventh day, or a\nday of rest, or holy time, or exercises which are proper only on the\nSabbath, you affirm, that you have proved your position beyond all\ndoubt, and that the only reason why I cannot see the evidence is\nbecause the vail of Judaism is over my eyes. The moral law says, \"The\nseventh day is the Sabbath;\" but you say, \"No, the seventh day is not\nthe Sabbath; you do not understand the law; you mistake its meaning.\"\nNeither that law, nor any other in the Bible, says, \"The first day is\nthe Sabbath.\" Notwithstanding, you dare to lift up your hands, and\nswear by the living God, that the first day _is_ the Sabbath. But this\nis not all. Oh! that it were! The Holy Ghost has said, not only in the\nrecord that God made on Adam's heart, and in the covenant of works,\nbut also in the written law given at Mount Sinai, and in several other\npassages of Scripture, \"The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy\nGod.\" But you have repeatedly sworn by the infinite, eternal, and\nunchangeable Jehovah, that _this assertion is not true_--that the\nseventh day is _not_ the Sabbath of the Lord our God--that it is a\ncommon working day. Because I can no longer join you in this\nheaven-daring oath, you have declared me unworthy of the confidence of\na Christian people, and forbidden me to perform any longer the\nfunctions of a missionary of the cross. You have told the church,\nthat, having violated my ordination vows, I have forfeited my\nministry, and that my seat at the Lord's table is vacant. You have\nthus flung upon the heedless winds the mad-dog cry of \"suspended\nminister,\" \"covenant-breaker,\" and \"disturber of the church's peace.\"\n\nBut think not, brethren, beloved in the Lord, that the treatment which\nI have received at your hands shall deter me from proclaiming what I\nbelieve to be God's truth, as God may give me utterance. That you wish\nto do what is right, I do not doubt. That you believe you do God\nservice in thrusting me from your Christian embraces, is evident\nenough. That many of you love me yet, and pray for me, I can but hope.\nBut that you all sin in not searching the Scriptures daily to see\nwhether these things are so, I do firmly believe.\n\nAnd now, brethren, I cannot close this treatise without uttering a\nword of warning to every one of you, which will, I fear, be very\ngenerally disregarded by you. Yet \"wo is me\" if I utter it not! Do\nnot, I beseech you, be angry at any thing I have written, or refuse to\nhear my parting words because I am a \"suspended minister.\" You have\nloaded me with reproach, not because I have committed any crime, but\nbecause I have plead for the integrity and immutability of the moral\nlaw. I am neither a thief, nor a murderer, nor a robber of churches,\nbut I do most firmly believe, that the seventh day is the Sabbath of\nthe Lord my God, and that you, and all others who do not keep it holy,\nare guilty before God of a gross violation of the moral law. And can\nI, under those circumstances, regard your reproaches as a legitimate\nexpression of the Divine displeasure? No. That I am really unworthy of\nthe gospel ministry, I confess. That I am not sufficient for these\nthings, I know. But, after having been regularly called to this\nresponsible work, I will not be driven from it, for such a cause. Know\nthen, ye rulers in the house of God, that I am still a minister of\nJesus Christ, sent forth to proclaim the terrors of God's law to the\nrebellious and impenitent, and to promise the grace of the gospel to\nthe penitent and believing. Know also, ye professors of the Christian\nreligion who neglect the sanctification of the seventh day, and\nespecially ye ministers of Jesus who \"teach men so,\" that you make\ndark what God has made plain; that you pluck out of the hand of God's\nschoolmaster one of those rods wherewith he would lash the carnal\nheart; that you hide one of God's candles under a bushel, and compass\nyourselves about with sparks, and a fire of your own kindling; that\nyou provoke the Holy Spirit, in rejecting his testimony, and teaching\nfor doctrine the commandments of men. Yes, brethren, though my words\nfall upon your ears as an idle tale that you believe not, I declare to\nyou, in the name of Him whom your doctrine dishonors and your\nphilosophy insults--in the name of that _suspended Minister_, to whom\nall the ends of the earth shall look for salvation--that, if you\nrepent not, the Holy Ghost will bear witness against you, in the awful\nday of retribution, that you have refused his words, and that you have\n\"put darkness for light, and light for darkness!\"\n\nThink not that I am your enemy, because I thus speak. Think not that I\nhave no confidence in your piety, because I rebuke you sharply. Think\nnot that I am proud, boastful, and self-confident, because I dare to\napproach _you_, who are vastly my superiors in knowledge, and remind\nyou of your duty. I would gladly have avoided this public exhibition\nof my sentiments. Had it been possible to withhold my testimony, you\nwould never have seen these pages. But \"necessity is laid upon me.\"\nAnd think not, I beseech you, that I am against the church of our\nRedeemer, or would hinder her prosperity, because I oppose a human\ninstitution which Christians very generally observe. \"If I forget\nthee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not\nremember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I\nprefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.\"\n\n[14] I believe, that the prophecy in Dan. 7:25, refers mainly to the\nchange of Sabbath-time, and Sabbath-law. What time, of divine\nappointment, it may be asked, was ever changed, except the time of the\nSabbath?\n\n[15] Some of my Reformed Presbyterian brethren appear to be as far\nfrom believing \"the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of\nFaith\" as myself, only they are a little more guarded in the choice of\nwords. That Confession says, (ch. 21, sec. 7,)\"--so, in his word, by a\npositive, moral, and perpetual commandment, _binding all men in all\nages_, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath,\nto be kept holy unto him.\" But Rev. Andrew Stephenson, in a letter to\nme, speaking of the seventh-day Sabbath, styles it, \"This relict of\nJudaism;\" and Rev. James Milligan, in a recent letter, asks me, \"Why\nhas not the Lord's day as good a right to take the place of the\nseventh day, as the Lord's Supper has to take the place of the\nPassover?\" Query--Are Reformed Presbyterians, who hold such\nsentiments, any better qualified to judge their brethren for\nSabbath-breaking, than I would be to judge them for a like offense?","title":"Tracts on the Sabbath","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":118575}